lincoln university digital - connecting repositories3.2 the ecology of the australasian harrier 23...
TRANSCRIPT
Lincoln University Digital Thesis
Copyright Statement
The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).
This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use:
you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and
due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the
thesis.
Managing populations of the Australasian harrier
(Circus approximans) to reduce passerine bird damage
in vineyards
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Applied Science
at
Lincoln University
by
Marlene Anne Leggett
Lincoln University
2012
ii
Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Applied Science.
Managing populations of the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) to
reduce passerine bird damage in vineyards
By M. A. Leggett
Vineyards around the world sustain significant economic losses due to grape loss and damage
caused by frugivorous passerine birds, and while bird control methods are in place, their
efficacy is limited and/or short lived. With the call for more sustainable agricultural practices
globally, it would be advantageous to offer an ecologically based solution to the bird problem
in vineyards, while further research and development into cheaper, more effective methods of
bird control that does not create noise or disturbance to communities surrounding vineyards is
required.
The Australasian harrier, a native, diurnal New Zealand raptor, is the focal species of this
project. With considerable numbers of harriers sited around New Zealand viticultural land, the
aim of this project was to attract populations of these harriers into vineyards by providing
them with an important food source – animal carcasses. The presence of harriers was expected
to exploit the innate fear that pest passerine birds have towards raptors and provide an
effective biological control aid that would provide an economically and environmentally
sound solution to passerine bird induced grape damage as the passerines responded to the
harrier rather than foraging on grapes.
The Australian harrier was attracted to raised feeding tables in Canterbury and Wairarapa
vineyards with supplementary food. Results indicated it was difficult to attain regular feeding
from all tables set up. Some feeding table sites saw harriers feeding off tables regularly and
intermittently, while at other sites no harriers exploited the tables. When presented with a two
choice food test on feeding tables, comprising one-day-old cock chicks and rabbit pieces in
the springtime, chicks (86%) were the harriers’ clear choice over rabbit pieces (14 %). During
the summer season, there was no preference, with equal amounts of both baits taken.
iii
Where feeding tables were present, pest bird abundance decreased by 56 %, and grape
damage also decreased by 59 %; however, these results were not necessarily linked only to
harrier presence. While harrier numbers increased due to feeding tables, so did the number of
other predators. A further trial without feeding tables where supplementary food was placed
on the ground to attract all predators, showed an increase of predators in the treatment sites
compared to control sites, with harriers and cats the most frequently observed. Pest passerine
bird densities in the control sites were higher than the treatment sites.
Raised feeding tables baited with animal carcasses are not necessarily a reliable method to
encourage harrier feeding in vineyards. Several reasons may explain why this method may be
unreliable. The best reason may be the motivation to feed off a novel object, i.e. the raised
table was not sufficient because of neophobic tendencies for some harriers, and these were
difficult to overcome. Alternative, easily accessible food sources were readily available in
some landscapes and agonistic relationships with other species, who were frequently seen
harassing harriers in study sites, may well have confounded attempts to achieve feeding off
tables at all sites. Findings perhaps negate the need for any feeding tables, and supplementary
feeding alone may be the key to attracting harriers and other predators into vineyards to
achieve the fundamental goal of decreasing pest passerine bird numbers and consequent grape
damage.
Keywords: ecosystem service, supplementary feeding, neophobia, raptors, predators,
vineyards, grape damage, passerine birds, pest management
iv
Acknowledgements
To my most excellent supervisors: James Ross, Valerie Saxton and Adrian Paterson, thank
you. Thank you for your encouragement, your expertise, and exceptional editing skills, oh and
I must not forget senses of humour! Despite a year of turmoil and tragedy for Christchurch,
you have all remained constant in your contact and support of this thesis and I pay tribute to
you for that.
Thank you to Rob Beard, viticulturalist, instigator, and expert of the harrier feeding
programme at Maimai Creek vineyard, Hawkes bay. Without Rob’s innovativeness in using
the harrier as part of the weapons against grape damage in vineyards, this opportunity may
never have happened. Thank you for sharing your knowledge verbally and practically, and for
the most delicious wines.
Thanks also go to my colleagues and friends from Lincoln University (past and present),who
provided mental and practical support and laughs: Sofia Orre, Dean O’Connell, Jessica
Dohmen-Vereijssen, Anna-Marie Barnes, Mary Harapoulou, John Marris, Rob Cruickshank,
Marco Jacometti, Phil Cochrane, Mark Parker, Milen Marinov, and Nathan Curtis.
Thanks to the staff at Lincworks, Lincoln university for the fantastic job they did making
harrier tables and harrier cages. Thanks to the chaps at the field service centre that supplied
me with rabbits and hares when I was in Canterbury.
Thanks to the staff at the Department of Conservation in Masterton who supplied training and
staff to assist with this project especially Jenny Whyte who assisted me in the banding
programme along with Rosemary Vanderlee and Raylene Berry.
A big thank you to all the vineyard owners and staff, firstly to Ray and Helen Watson of
Bentwood wines in Canterbury whose enthusiasm and support for this project was much
appreciated in the early days. To the vineyard owners and staff in Martinborough who
welcomed me to Martinborough, showed much enthusiasm for this project and provided
practical support in some cases. Kaye McAulay and John Bell at Vynfields, Peter Wilkins at
Martinborough Vineyard, Dave Shepherd at Escarpment, Christine Barnett, Jeff Barber, and
Walter of course who loves harriers, at Pond Paddock, Clive and Phyl Paton and Gerry
Rotman at Ata Rangi, Charles Simons at Craggy Range, and Ted and Leonie Wilde at Cirrus
Estate vineyard.
Thank you and much love to my family: to Mark, my husband and life coach. Thank you for
your love, support, encouragement and always believing in me! Thank you to my two
beautiful girls, Abigail and Victoria for their encouragement and enthusiasm for this project,
and forgiving me for all the “cute” dead bodies, I kept in the outside freezer.
I wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Don Hulston Foundation Scholarship and
the William Machin Scholarship for academic excellence.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures* ........................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 The problem of passerine birds in vineyards 1 1.1.1 Economic losses 1 1.1.2 Damage caused 2 1.1.3 Driving factors that cause damage 3
1.2 Safe and economic solutions for bird control 4 1.3 Current control methods and evaluation 4
1.3.1 Shooting 5 1.3.2 Exclusion 5 1.3.3 Visual and acoustic deterrents 6
1.4 Bird control and the fear factor 6 1.5 Biological Control using birds of prey: a cheaper, readily available, and safer
solution to bird control? 7 1.5.1 Passerine bird fear response to birds of prey 7 1.5.2 Research to date 8 1.5.3 The New Zealand falcon (Falco novaseelandiae) 8
1.6 Study subjects 9 1.6.1 Bird species 9 1.6.2 Grape variety 9
1.7 Preliminary procedures 9 1.8 Study site/location 10
1.9 Research Aims 11 1.9.1 Questions addressed 11
1.10 Structure of the thesis 12
Chapter 2 Identification and ecology of damage-causing passerine birds found in New
Zealand vineyards .................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Starling 15 2.3 Blackbird 17
2.4 Song Thrush 18 2.5 Silvereye 19 2.6 Other passerine species 21
Chapter 3 The Australasian harrier as a biological control agent .................................... 22
3.1 Introduction 22 3.2 The ecology of the Australasian harrier 23
3.2.1 Description 24
3.2.2 Feeding 24 3.2.3 Breeding 25 3.2.4 Social behaviour 25
3.3 Food resource availability effects on Australasian harrier populations 25 3.3.1 Density and range size 26 3.3.2 Breeding 26
vi
3.3.3 Dispersal from natal site 27 3.4 Supplementary feeding effects on harrier biology 27
3.4.1 Density and range size 28 3.4.2 Breeding 28
3.5 Conclusion 28
Chapter 4 Neophobia to Neophilia: Manipulating the hunting and feeding behaviour
of the Australasian harrier .................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Abstract 30 4.2 Introduction 30 4.3 Methods 33
4.3.1 Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury 34 4.3.2 Martinborough vineyard sites 35
4.4 Results 36 4.4.1 Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury 36
4.5 Discussion 38
4.6 Conclusion 42
Chapter 5 Spring and summer food preferences of the Australasian harrier in
vineyards ................................................................................................................................. 43
5.1 Abstract 43 5.2 Introduction 43 5.3 Methods 45 5.4 Results 46 5.5 Discussion 48
5.5.1 Nutritional requirements 48 5.5.2 Neophobia and food choice 49 5.5.3 Search image and prey seasonal abundance 50
5.6 Conclusion 51
Chapter 6 Australasian harrier presence and passerine bird abundance in vineyards .. 53
6.1 Abstract 53 6.2 Introduction 53 6.3 Methods 55
6.3.1 Five-minute bird counts 56 6.4 Results 58
6.4.1 Abundance 58 6.4.2 Distance from table/notional table site 59
6.4.3 Bird Behaviour: 60 6.4.4 Species 60
6.5 Discussion 61 6.5.1 Abundance of pest passerine birds and harrier presence 61 6.5.2 Distance from the feeding table and harrier presence 62
6.5.3 Passerine bird behaviour and harrier presence 63 6.5.4 Species type and harrier presence 63
6.6 Conclusion 64
Chapter 7 Supplementary feeding of the Australasian harrier and the impact on
grape damage in vineyards .................................................................................................... 65
7.1 Abstract 65 7.2 Introduction 65 7.3 Methods 68 7.4 Results 70 7.5 Discussion 73
vii
7.6 Conclusion 75
Chapter 8 Supplementary feeding and its effects on predator numbers and pest
passerine bird abundance in vineyards ................................................................................ 76
8.1 Abstract 76 8.2 Introduction 76 8.3 Methods 78 8.4 Results 79 8.5 Discussion 81 8.6 Conclusion 86
Chapter 9 Problems and challenges ...................................................................................... 87
9.1 Introduction 87 9.2 Trapping and banding of harriers 87 9.3 Failure to establish a regular feeding pattern from the raised feeding table in some
vineyard sites 89 9.4 Non-target feeders 89
9.5 Sheep, pheasants and human activity 91 9.6 Wasps, flies, and decomposing carcasses 92 9.7 Conclusion 93
Chapter 10 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 94
10.1 Summary of findings 94 10.2 Future Directions 97
10.2.1 Longer time period of feeding 97 10.2.2 Seasonal timing of a supplementary feeding programme 97 10.2.3 Supplementary food at all vineyard edges 98 10.2.4 Control of other predatory populations in vineyards 98 10.2.5 Further grape damage assessment after predators have been regularly
supplementary fed 98 10.2.6 Harrier activity frequency monitoring in vineyards with and without feeding
tables 98 10.2.7 Cost / benefit analysis of grape loss cost and the cost of feeding and
maintaining harriers in vineyards. 99 10.3 Final Conclusions 99 References 102
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................ 117
Thank you letter to participating vineyard owners ........................................................... 118
viii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Days per month that bait was taken from the feeding table, at Bentwood Vineyard,
Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009. #of days= number of days per month bait was placed
on the feeding table, N= number of days per month bait was taken and % per month
= the percentage of bait uptake per month ............................................................... 36
Table 4.2: Number of days delay until feeding after different feeding treatments at Bentwood
Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009 .................................................................... 37
Table 4.3: Bait uptake by Australasian harriers at nine vineyards in Martinborough, Wairarapa
(2010-2011), showing number of vineyards where bait was either not taken,
intermittently, or regularly, when placed on the ground or placed on the elevated
table .......................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.1: Time taken for feeding establishment from feeding table, at Bentwood Vineyard,
Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009. N= number of days per month bait was taken. % =
percentage of bait uptake per month. With the addition of chicks in October harrier
visits increased from approx. 50 % to 100 ............................................................... 47
Table 6. 1: Total number of pest passerine birds present in vineyards (per 5 minute bird
count), with and without feeding tables ................................................................. 58
Table 6.2: Numbers of pest passerine birds flying, in net contact, or within the net, with and
without feeding table present ................................................................................... 60
Table 7.1: Harrier, cat and magpie visits to baited harrier feeding tables in Martinborough
vineyards immediately prior to harvest 2011 ........................................................... 72
ix
List of Figures*
Figure 1.1: Bentwood vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury. Retrieved using Google Earth, 6 Feb,
2012. Picture centred on coordinates 43o42’20.14”S, 172
o34’14.17”E, viewed
from 636m ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 1.2: Martinborough, Wairarapa vineyard study sites 2010-2011 retrieved using Google
Earth, 6 Feb, 2012. Picture centred on coordinates 41o14’51.51”S,
175o28’20.47”E, viewed from 13.22km ............................................................... 11
Figure 2.1: Pinot Noir grape bunch displaying peck damage caused by silvereyes ................. 20
Figure 4.1: Feeding table attached 200mm off the ground to 2m pole, with rabbit carcasses as
bait, at Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury............................................... 34
Figure 4.2: Australasian harrier feeding on rabbit carcass on a raised table at Pond Paddock
vineyard, Martinborough, Wairarapa, 2011 .......................................................... 38
Figure 5.1: Diagram showing example of placement of food items on feeding table (yellow =
chicks, red = rabbit pieces). As items were taken by harriers they were replaced
i.e. rabbit for rabbit, chick for chick ..................................................................... 46
Figure 5.2: Mean (+ SEM) percentage of chicks and rabbit taken by Australasian harriers
from a raised feeding table in spring 2009 ............................................................ 47
Figure 5.3: Mean (+ SEM) percentage of chicks and rabbit taken by Australasian harriers
from a raised feeding table in summer 2009/2010 ................................................ 48
Figure 6.1: Vineyard plot showing counting distances from feeding table/notional table sites
(0-20m, 20-40m, 40-60m, 60-80m) for 5-minute bird counts with observer point
located in vineyard vegetation/shelterbelt. ........................................................... 57
Figure 6.2 Mean number of pest passerine birds (± SEM) in Martinborough vineyards with
Australasian harrier feeding tables absent and present .......................................... 59
Figure 6.3: Mean number (± SEM) of pest passerine birds and distance from the feeding
table/notional table site in vineyards ..................................................................... 59
Figure 6.4: Mean number (± SEM) of pest passerine bird species (BB= blackbird, S= starling,
SE= silvereye, ST= song thrush) found in vineyards with Australasian harrier
feeding tables absent and present .......................................................................... 61
Figure 7.1: Peck-damaged grape bunch with a honeybee (Apis sp.) feeding on juice ............ 68
x
Figure 7.2: Grape damage caused by pest passerine birds despite netting. Missing grapes from
the bunch can be seen with exposed pedicels, close to the edge of the netting ..... 69
Figure 7.3: Mean (+SEM) percentage grape damage in Martinborough vineyards 2010
(without Australasian harrier feeding table present ............................................... 71
Figure 7.4: Mean (+SEM) percentage grape damage with and without Australasian harrier
feeding tables present. Letters above the means indicate significant site
differences using Fishers LSD test (α=0.05 .......................................................... 72
Figure 8.1: Median number of predators and passerine bird abundance in Martinborough
vineyards with and without supplementary food ................................................... 80
Figure 8.2: Relationship between total predator abundance and total pest passerine bird
abundance showing an exponential regression trend line...................................... 80
Figure 8.3: Median numbers of different predatory species visiting Martinborough vineyards.
............................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 8.4: Australasian harrier accessing bait (day- old cock chick) offered on the ground in
a Martinborough vineyard .................................................................................... 82
Figure 8.5: Cat accessing bait in a Martinborough vineyard ................................................... 83
Figure 8.6: Magpies attracted into a Martinborough vineyard after bait was placed on the
ground .................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 8.7: Starlings foraging unperturbed in vineyard where supplementary feeding site is
located and Australasian harrier approaching in the distance ............................... 85
Figure 8.8: Starlings in vineyard disturbed by approach of Australasian harrier, (caught on
camera five minutes after that of figure 8.6) ......................................................... 85
Figure 9.1: One of the three banded Australasian harriers caught by camera trap returning to
Burnt Spur vineyard, Martinborough, where animal carcasses were placed ......... 88
Figure 9.2: Cat accessing bait laid out for harriers on elevated feeding table at Craggy Range
vineyard. Table is lashed to fencing as a requirement by vineyard staff ............... 90
Figure 9.3: Magpie at Cirrus Estate vineyard, Martinborough, with day-old cock chick (harrier
bait) taken from a feeding table, protruding from its beak .................................... 91
*All photographs taken by M. A. Leggett
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 The problem of passerine birds in vineyards
1.1.1 Economic losses
Vineyards around the world sustain significant economic losses due to grape (Vitis vinifera)
loss and damage caused by frugivorous passerine birds (Plesser et al., 1983; Somers &
Morris, 2002; Berge et al., 2007a; Tracey et al., 2007). While it appears to be a difficult task
to obtain accurate figures when assessing economic losses to the viticulture industry because
of bird damage, some estimates have been made. In 1998, the estimated total loss of grape
production in Marlborough, New Zealand was approximately 3%, or around $1 million NZD,
despite bird control measures being in place (Boyce et al., 1999). The financial implications
from a loss of grape production will have increased as the number of vineyards in New
Zealand has grown over the past decade and the wine industry itself has shown a rapid
increase. The statistical annual from “New Zealand Wine” (http://www.nzwine.com/)
reported that the national vineyard in 2000 was 10,197 hectares, and had increased to 31,964
hectares by 2009.
Saxton (2004) reported that the common 10-15% loss in grape yield in New Zealand
vineyards due to bird damage resulted in considerable economic losses. Earlier studies by
Fukuda (1999) and Watkins (1999), noted that the greatest loss to New Zealand vineyards
was related to grape loss/damage caused by birds, while anecdotal reports went as far as
estimating a loss in wine production due to bird damage to be as much as $70 million
nationally (Fox, 2008). Boyce et al. (1999) suggested that in some of the vineyards surveyed,
more money was spent on bird control than was estimated to have been saved on crop
damage. In Australia, it was reported (Tracey & Saunders, 2003) that bird damage was
responsible for a total economic loss in some vineyards, while overall losses were estimated at
nearly $300 million AUD annually (Tracey et al., 2007).
Research into reducing bird damage currently lacks adequate information with regard to the
severity and spatial distribution of damage, along with data efficacy and cost/benefit analyses
related to reduction strategies (Tracey et al., 2007). It has also been suggested that identifying
the most susceptible areas of damage in vineyards is perhaps more useful than estimating total
2
yield losses (Somers & Morris, 2002). Further investigation into possible causes and
subsequent solutions with robust evaluation methods are required to mitigate economic losses
caused by passerine birds located in vineyards.
1.1.2 Damage caused
Bird damage to grapes has two main mechanisms: removal of the whole grape and pecking of
the grape, which breaks the grape skin barrier and allows the entrance of yeast, fungi, and
bacteria (Boyce et al., 1999; Saxton, 2004; Tracey et al., 2007). Botrytis cinerea is an
example of this; a necrotrophic fungus, it gains entry through pecked grapes and can result in
heavy yield losses and tainted wine (Santos et al., 2004; Elmer & Michailides, 2004;
Jacometti et al., 2007)
In New Zealand vineyards, the major contributors to grape damage are the introduced
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), European blackbird (Turdus merula) song thrush
(Turdus philomelos), and the self-introduced silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) (Watkins, 1999;
Saxton, 2004). The blackbird, starling, and song thrush take the whole grape while the
silvereye, due to its smaller size, pecks the grape, producing wounds that attract wasps
(Vespula spp.) (Porter et al., 1994). Wasps may increase the size of the damaged area, and
help to provide the establishment of the Botrytis cinerea fungus (Boyce et al., 1999; Tracey &
Saunders, 2003).
Reports have suggested that the introduced myna (Acridotheres tristis) (Saxton, 2004), and
the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) (Tracey et al., 2007; Beard, R., pers. comm. 2009),
also play a part in grape damage in New Zealand vineyards. The myna is restricted by
geographic location (the upper North Island) so will not affect this study’s lower North/South
Island’s geographic location. In addition, there are conflicting opinions (Nelson, 1990; Boyce
et al., 1999; Saxton, 2004), on the culpability of sparrow-induced grape damage in New
Zealand; therefore, these two species will not be addressed in this study.
Grape damage sustained by birds, is not consistent throughout vineyards (Somers & Morris,
2002; Tracey & Saunders, 2003), varying spatially and temporally within and between
vineyards (Somers & Morris, 2002). This is supported by Saxton (2004) who observed the
interior vines in a vineyard do not generally sustain much damage from bird pressure, but
vines that are at the edge of the vineyard are more vulnerable to bird attack and generally
sustain the most damage. In this case, smaller vineyards, with higher edge to interior area
3
ratios will suffer greater economic losses than larger ones (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Saxton,
2004). Grape damage is also seasonal and most bird pressure commences in autumn,
coinciding with the véraison (when the grape changes colour) and the grape-ripening period.
1.1.3 Driving factors that cause damage
Saxton (2004) suggested that grape depredation by pest birds is probably reliant on many
factors; including hunger, nutritional needs, mimicking behaviour of other birds, grape
availability and abundance, and environmental factors. Reducing bird damage is a daunting
task due to unpredictability of damage from year to year. Seasonal conditions, bird population
numbers, and localisation of damage (Boyce et al., 1999; Tracey et al., 2007) are often
different between years.
Grape damage by birds often correlates with the vegetation present in and around the vineyard
site. Birds may nest in surrounding vegetation, i.e. shelterbelts, all year round in vineyards
even when grapes are not present (Saxton, 2004) and damage is often concentrated around
these features (Tracey et al., 2007). The close proximity of “cover” or roosting sites for
passerine birds appears to enhance the damage to outer grapevine rows, allowing birds to
make a swift retreat to the trees when threatened by perceived predators.
Watkins (1999) pointed out that there are both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that influence the
type and level of damage that a vineyard sustains. Extrinsic includes the “structure and
composition” of the surrounding habitat and intrinsic concerns the grape itself. Extrinsic
factors include height and density of the vegetation, including the proximity of the vineyard to
bird roosts and perching sites. Vegetative cover characteristics, an important feature in
minimising predatory risk, can affect a bird’s decision to remain at a foraging site (Lima,
1990; Porter et al., 1994; Somers & Morris, 2002; Taber, 2002; Saxton, 2004; Tracey et al.,
2007). Intrinsic factors include maturity of the grape. Once a threshold of 130Brix (sugar level
of a ripening grape) is reached, an exponential rate of damage can occur (Tobin, 1984;
Watkins,1999), and factors, such as colour and size of the grape, can all affect bird foraging
decisions (Boudreau, 1972; DeHaven, 1974; Watkins, 1999; Tracey & Saunders, 2003).
Grape vine morphology, including the height of the grape bunch, branching pattern of the
plant, position of fruit on the branch and proximity to stable perches within the plant on the
vine can invite different levels of damage (DeHaven, 1974; Stanley & Lill, 2001). How a fruit
is presented on a plant can affect the fruit’s accessibility to frugivorous bird species
4
(Boudreau,1972; DeHaven, 1974; Somers and Morris, 2002), while grape bunches that are
closer to the ground will be more vulnerable if certain bird species, for example blackbirds
and song thrushes, that are commonly ground foragers, are common in the vineyard (Watkins,
1999).
1.2 Safe and economic solutions for bird control
There is a call for more sustainable farming practices globally, including requirements for
decreased uses of pesticides and other environmentally unsustainable practices. It would be
advantageous to offer a more ecologically-based solution to the bird problem in vineyards.
Spadoro & Gullino (2005) and Jacometti et al. (2007) reported the growing demand for
sustainable organic agricultural practices in wine production, and Duminy (2004) suggested
that there is an increased demand for organic practices with regard to wine making which
includes being “ecologically accountable” to consumers. Bisson et al. (2002) noted that the
wine industry needs to promote environmental stewardship and that consumers are beginning
to expect wine production to be implemented in an environmentally sustainable manner.
“Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand” (SWNZ) is attempting to address many of these
concerns today.
Aside from environmental considerations, there are economic considerations as Boyce et al.
(1999, p.53) pointed out…“There is a case for research and development into cheaper, more
effective methods of bird control. There is also good reason for the development of a cost
effective and effective method that does not create a noise or nuisance”.
1.3 Current control methods and evaluation
So, what has been past practice in dealing with these pest species and how effective have they
been? While there has been a measure of success with some practices, they appear to remain
both expensive and labour intensive. Some scaring techniques, while effective initially, are
unable to sustain any significant long-term management effects. Bird control in vineyards is
an ongoing problem (Taber, 2002), and control measures historically and in recent times do
not always appear to be ecologically sound. Bird control practices such as gas guns and
shooting can produce social issues such as noise pollution, along with adverse public reaction
(Boyce et al., 2001). Other measures include netting of the vines, bird-scaring devices such as
5
hawk kites, recorded alarm and distress calls, and toxins (Dzhabbarov, 1988; Fleming, 1990;
Bomford & Sinclair, 2002; Taber, 2002; Berge et al., 2007a; Berge et al., 2007b). Toxins
such as Mesurol® have been used in the past in New Zealand as a chemical bird repelling
solution in vineyards, but are no longer permitted due to unacceptable residues of the
chemicals detected in wine (Saxton, 2004). Mesurol®, which has methiocarb as its active
ingredient, was banned in 1992. This ingredient was found to be carcinogenic to humans
(Saxton, 2004).
Bomford & Sinclair (2002) reported that most of the ecological research on bird damage
control has been on habitat manipulation e.g. removing vegetation, which provides shelter for
birds, or planting decoy crops to attract birds away from the target crop. However, they noted
that for reasons such as effort and resources required to implement these ideas and a general
lack of awareness of the benefit of these practices, there has been a failure in growers
adopting these practices.
1.3.1 Shooting
Shooting is the most widely used form of bird control but according to some studies, the least
effective (Fleming, 1990; Bomford, 1992; Tracey & Saunders, 2003). Its aim is to reduce
populations of pest birds, thereby decreasing damage to target crops (Bomford, 1992). It is a
costly and time-consuming method of bird control and Fleming (1990) and Boyce et al.
(1999) reported that some wine growers found this practice inefficient as many pest birds
learn to avoid shooting. While it may have its place in bird control, it may be only effective as
a reinforcement of other forms of control, such as gas guns (Tracey & Saunders, 2003).
1.3.2 Exclusion
Exclusion netting, although expensive, is effective, because it directly prevents pest birds
from contact with the ripening grape (Yim & Kang, 1982; Jarvis, 1985; Boyce et al., 1999;
Sinclair, 2002; Taber, 2002; Komeda et al., 2005; Berge et al., 2007a). However, netting has
its drawbacks; nets increase humidity, leading to an increase of pathogens, and they can
inhibit photosynthesis reducing the quality of the grape (Saxton, 2004). Application and
retrieval of nets is labour intensive and time consuming. In New Zealand, questions have been
raised about the bio-degradability of materials used in netting practice with the discarding of
single-use nets after grape harvest (Beard, R. pers. comm., 2009). Hanni & Eccli (2006)
support this by noting that netting practices are ecologically undesirable, however, the
6
disposal of old nets is now a controlled activity under the SWNZ and is offered by netting
companies when new nets are being purchased.
1.3.3 Visual and acoustic deterrents
Bird scaring techniques, like the “Peaceful Pyramid” which “reflects light into the air at the
reverse angle of the bird's approach and the intensity of the reflection confuses the bird by
overloading its visual sensory receptors and so removing the impulse to land and feed"
(Fukuda et al., 2008), and the eye-spot balloon (mimics predators eyes) trialled by Fukuda et
al. (2008), are of little value. The authors noted that these techniques would not provide any
economic advantage to winegrowers. In an earlier study Hickling (1995), supported these
observations noting that bird-scaring methods, such as eye-spot balloons, while demonstrating
a measure of success initially, are often short-lived as the pest birds begin to habituate to the
balloons after one to two weeks.
Gas guns are used frequently but wine growers have anecdotally reported that these devices
can act as an attraction to ripening grapes rather than as a fear-producing deterrent. They note
that gas guns appear to signal to birds that ripening grapes are associated with the sound the
gun produces. Tracey & Saunders (2003) reported gas guns to be more effective than
shooting. However, while birds would immediately respond to the sound of this device, flying
upwards, they return to forage on grapes within minutes of the gas gun sounding (pers. obs.).
Daugovish et al. (2006) and Tracey et al. (2007) noted that other visual devices such as hawk-
kites, raptor models and acoustic devices such as gas guns rapidly lose effectiveness as pest
birds become accustomed to them. Another method observed included vineyard staff driving
up and down the vine rows and sounding their quad bike horns within the vineyard. However,
there is no research to support whether this method is effective.
1.4 Bird control and the fear factor
Passerine birds that perceive an increased risk from predators may alter habitat use, including
foraging behaviour, with flow on effects for reproductive success and future population
dynamics (Dunn et al., 2010). Fearful (e.g. from predator presence), frugivorous passerine
birds, such as those found in vineyards, will often modify foraging behaviour with regard to
amount of food taken and length of foraging time (Howe, 1979). Birds will react to sudden,
strange and dangerous stimuli (Tracey et al., 2007), including the presence of a predator. The
immediate response to fear stimuli is flight, although the next response may be that of
7
curiosity and the bird will gather information on whether the threat is real or not, leading to
habituation to the stimulus and the potential threat becomes invalid (Tracey & Saunders,
2003; Tracey et al., 2007).
1.5 Biological Control using birds of prey: a cheaper, readily available, and safer solution to bird control?
Ecological engineering is a possible, yet little researched, alternative. Engineering or
managing populations of predator bird species into vineyards to act as biological control
agents may provide a solution. Birds of prey are a possible economically and ecologically
sustainable solution to the problem of pest bird management, providing an effective
ecosystem service in agricultural settings, including viticulture. The possibility of exploiting
the innate fear of raptors by passerine birds may be the key to utilising native diurnal New
Zealand raptors as biological control agents in agricultural settings. Most birds have an
inherent fear of predatory birds, such as raptors (Conover, 1979; Hothem & De Haven, 1982;
Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et al., 2006), and will demonstrate
avoidance behaviours to counteract predation.
1.5.1 Passerine bird fear response to birds of prey
Predatory avoidance responses by passerine birds to raptors can vary. The predator-prey
interaction is clearly displayed in the relationship between raptor and passerine bird where the
presence of a raptor will invoke shelter-seeking behaviour and abandonment of the foraging
area (Daugovish et al., 2006). In addition, the foraging decision making process both
temporally and spatially can also be affected by the presence of predators (Valone & Lima,
1987; Dunn et al., 2010). Flocking behaviour is also an example of this predator-prey
interaction, demonstrated by starlings, where flocking is an anti-predation response to aerial
predators (Carere et al., 2009). Other behaviour exhibited in response to aerial predator
presence include fleeing to cover after both conspecific and interspecific aerial alarm calls are
signaled (Göth, 2001; Magrath et al., 2007). Furthermore, passerine bird species densities are
often lower near raptor nesting habitat (Norrdahl & Korpimäki, 1998), and they will not
usually remain where a high risk of predation is possible (Lima & Valone, 1991).
It is also apparent that the behaviour of the raptor itself can increase or decrease the fear
response of smaller birds. A flying raptor instilled more fear into smaller birds than a perching
8
one and it is suggested that some passerine birds can recognise that flying is the method that
raptors use to capture them (Conover, 1979).
1.5.2 Research to date
Birds of prey such as falcons (Falco spp.) and hawks (Buteo and Accipiter spp.) have been
utilised around the world as biological control agents for pest bird species other than in
agricultural settings (Erickson et al., 1990). Falconry to deter bird strikes of airplanes has
shown some success (Erickson et al., 1990; Daugovish et al., 2006). However, Erickson et al.
(1990) noted that falconry is expensive and there are a limited number of trained falconers.
In an agricultural context, one Californian Napa Valley and Central Coast vineyard study in
the United States of America noted a single falcon living in a 202 hectare area reduced pest
bird numbers for six weeks (Alley, 2003). Management of Malaysian barn owl (Tyto alba
javanica) populations have been studied as predators of rats in oil palm (Elaeis quineensis)
plantations. With the erection of nest boxes in the plantation environment, barn owl numbers
increased rapidly and a reduced number of rats followed (Duckett, 1991).
1.5.3 The New Zealand falcon (Falco novaseelandiae)
Using raptors to protect vineyards has already been initiated in New Zealand in the “Falcon
for Grapes” project. The “Falcons for Grapes” project in Marlborough, New Zealand, has a
two-pronged focus (Fox et al., 2006); conservation of a threatened (see Holland &
McCutcheon, 2007) endemic raptor, the New Zealand falcon, and protection of grapes from
bird damage through the falcon’s ability to predate on passerine bird species that decimate
vineyard crops.
The falcon’s habitat is native and exotic forests, hilly and rough farmland (Heather &
Robertson, 1996) and it is not abundant in the land that is utilised for traditional viticulture
practice. The “Falcons for Grapes” project translocated falcon chicks into artificial nests in
Marlborough vineyards where establishment of this predatory species mitigated grape damage
caused by pest passerine bird species (Saxton, 2010, Kross et al., 2011) While successful,
difficulties have arisen, such as the low numbers of birds to breed from, lack of commitment
from winegrowers to look after the falcons, economic support for further research and
consequent industry uptake (Saxton & Keane, 2010). Given the difficulties that have arisen
with the falcon project, the perhaps next obvious choice would be inquiry into the suitability
9
of another New Zealand raptor, the non-threatened or common Australasian harrier (Circus
approximans) in a similar role.
1.6 Study subjects
1.6.1 Bird species
The Australasian harrier is a self-introduced, diurnal, raptor that is the focus of this research
(see chapter 3 for further discussion). In New Zealand vineyards the major contributors to
grape damage are the introduced starling, blackbird, song thrush and the self-introduced
silvereye (Watkins, 1999; Saxton, 2004) and these are the focal pest bird species for this
project (see chapter 2 for further discussion).
1.6.2 Grape variety
Grapes are attacked by birds during the ripening period, and Saxton (2004) outlined that there
are many factors that contribute to a bird’s decision to attack grapes. These include both
endogenous motivators such as hunger, nutritional requirements, and mimicking behaviour.
The other motivation includes exogenous factors such as grape abundance and environmental
factors (Saxton, 2004).
As different grape varieties sustain different levels of damage (Fisher, 1992; Tracey &
Saunders, 2003; Saxton, 2004), one particular cultivar was selected to provide a uniform
approach to grape damage assessment. Pinot Noir sustains more bird damage compared to
some other varieties such as Sauvignon Blanc (Saxton, 2010), and is a prominent cultivar in
this study sites’ location. It has a low yield, high consumer demand, and therefore net worth,
and is highly valued in this area, making it a priority for protective measures.
1.7 Preliminary procedures
For this project to commence, a Lincoln University animal ethics application(AEC approval
no. 306) was required along with input from the Rūnanga (governing council or
administrative group of Maori) related to the area in which the study vineyard sites were to be
located. The harrier or, in Maori, kahu, have spiritual significance to Maori. Rūnanga in both
the Canterbury and Martinborough regions approved this project. A banding permit
(2010/006) and wildlife low-impact research and collection permit (WE27341/FAU) was
applied for and granted by the Department of Conservation.
10
1.8 Study site/location
The research sites included two different geographic locations. The initial study site chosen
for this project was Bentwood Wines a 3 hectare vineyard, 5.4 km south-east of Tai Tapu,
Canterbury, New Zealand. The site is situated in a valley surrounded by macrocarpa
(Cupressus macrocarpa) trees with some native vegetation within it and grazed farmland.
Grape varieties grown were Pinot Blanc, Pinot Noir, and Gewürztraminer. The vineyard was
divided into two sections by a boundary of large trees and a private road, which provides a
visual screen between the two sections (Fig. 1.1). Harriers were seen regularly both in the
vineyard and surrounding farmland.
Figure 1.1: Bentwood vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury. Retrieved using Google Earth, 6
Feb, 2012. Picture centred on coordinates 43o42’20.14”S, 172
o34’14.17”E, viewed from
636m.
Secondary sites (n=9) were located in Martinborough, Wairarapa, lying east of the Rimutaka
Range in a valley in the southern part of the North Island (Fig.1.2). The vineyards are part or
fully surrounded by large, mostly exotic trees, which act as a shelterbelt for the grapevines.
This area features small boutique, often family-owned, vineyards with notable, award-
winning Pinot Noir grapes dominating the wine varieties grown here. Many of the vineyard
sites were located in close proximity to domestic dwellings. Harriers were seen frequently
around the Martinborough landscape, along roadways, pastureland, and over vineyards.
11
Figure 1.2: Martinborough, Wairarapa vineyard study sites 2010-2011 retrieved using
Google Earth, 6 Feb, 2012. Picture centred on coordinates 41o14’51.51”S,
175o28’20.47”E, viewed from 13.83km.
1.9 Research Aims
This research aims to present an economically and environmentally-sound solution to
passerine bird damage to grapes by attracting populations of the Australian harrier into
vineyards by providing them with an important food source, animal carcasses. Whether this in
turn will reduce pest bird numbers in vineyards and associated grape damage, is the focus of
this research. If successful, this would lead to a potential reduction of variable costs in
vineyards, e.g. netting, shooting, labour, and a reduction of external costs, e.g. environmental
health. This research is underpinned by a biological exploration of a potential ecosystem
service, i.e. a wild native aerial predator, which may provide an ecological solution to an
economic problem.
1.9.1 Questions addressed
The research will address questions relating to the fundamental query of whether a wild bird
can change its typical ecological behaviour in response to supplementary feeding. It will aim
to answer whether an Australasian harrier’s normal hunting and feeding behaviour can be
manipulated and at the same time, answer whether it has preferential food choices between
12
seasons. The research also examines whether passerine bird behaviour can be modified;
investigating the relationship between harrier presence (due to supplementary feeding) and
passerine bird densities. Lastly and importantly, it investigates whether or not this has the
flow on effect of decreasing grape damage.
1.10 Structure of the thesis
To answer the above questions the structure of the thesis is as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction, background, research aims, and research questions.
Chapter 2: Identification and ecology of damage-causing passerine birds found in New
Zealand vineyards: Identification of individual pest bird species is essential to manage the
problem of birds in vineyards. Differences in biology and behaviour of pest passerine birds in
vineyards have different effects on damage to grapes and are important factors in
implementing control methods.
Chapter 3: The Australasian harrier as a biological control agent: This chapter outlines the
ecology of the focal species of the thesis. It includes food resource availability on harrier
populations and the effects of supplementary food and its potential to provide biological
control in vineyards.
Chapter 4: Neophobia to Neophilia: Manipulating the hunting and feeding behaviour of the
Australasian harrier. Manipulating the Australasian harrier to feed off a raised table, which is
not a normal behaviour, could be difficult. Hunger caused by seasonal lack of availability of
food and the bird’s life cycle, e.g. nesting or juvenile hunting skill may be the catalyst for it to
overcome its neophobic tendencies and initiate feeding from a raised table. Here, the goal was
to discover if it is possible to maintain a regular feeding regime for Australasian harriers from
raised feeding tables. This step would be integral to the success of the project.
Chapter 5: Spring/Summer food choice: In New Zealand in the spring and summer, there is
much reliance on eggs and nestlings by the harrier as a food source (Baker-Gabb, 1981). This
may be because they are easy to transport to nest sites. Anecdotal reports have suggested that
the harrier prefers chicks (Gallus domesticus) to their other favoured food, rabbits
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) at breeding times.
13
Chapter 6: Australasian harrier presence and passerine bird densities in vineyards: It is
hypothesised that with the increased presence of the Australian harrier due to a regular
supplementary feeding programme within the vineyard, population densities of pest passerine
birds will be decreased within vineyards.
Chapter 7: Grape damage assessment pre-harvest: Assessment of pest bird deterrence from
the vineyard is a fundamental indicator of the goal of this research. With a decrease in pest
birds frequenting the vineyard at the grape ripening period and the increase of harrier
presence because of a regular feeding programme it is predicted that grape damage will be
reduced.
Chapter 8: Other predators in vineyards and the effects of supplementary feeding and
subsequent decreased pest passerine bird abundance: The identity of potential predators of
passerines will be confirmed (via camera trap), particularly those accessing harrier feeding
tables and consuming bait laid out for harriers. Where tables were present, grape damage was
shown to be less, however as only one table out of the seven was being visited regularly by
harriers over the grape-ripening period it was hypothesised that these other visiting predators
could also be responsible for the decreased grape damage effects.
Chapter 9: Problems and challenges addressed and discussed.
Chapter 10: Summary of findings, future directions, and conclusion.
14
Chapter 2
Identification and ecology of damage-causing passerine
birds found in New Zealand vineyards
2.1 Introduction
Grape damage caused by birds varies spatially and temporally within and between vineyards
(Somers & Morris, 2002; Tracey & Saunders, 2003). While it is important to assess the area
in the vineyard that is most susceptible to bird damage, in order to initiate a successful control
programme identification of individual pest bird species is also crucial (Somers & Morris,
2002). This chapter identifies the main damage-causing passerine bird species in New
Zealand vineyards, including individual ecological aspects of each species particularly related
to vineyard environments. Differences in biology and behaviour of the birds have different
effects on damage to grapes and are important factors in implementing control methods
(Boudreau, 1972; Jarman, 1990; Fisher, 1992; Flaherty, 1992; Tracey et al., 2007; Herrmann
& Anderson, 2007). Jarman (1990) emphasized that there should be long-term studies on pest
bird behaviour which would then act as the foundation for behaviour manipulation and
consequent damage control in vineyards.
Understanding a bird’s ecology enough to recognise their role in grapevine interference and
identifying areas in the vineyard where the damage actually occurs may provide clues to
damage reduction (Bomford, 1992). Some bird species, such as the European blackbird
(Turdus merula), live within a small area, while others, such as the silvereye (Zosterops
lateralis) and the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), are seasonally migratory and move
freely around landscapes. Some live in small groups and others, such as the starling and
silvereye, can form large flocks (Heather & Anderson, 1996; Tracey et al., 2007). Tracey et
al. (2007) pointed out that species that are more mobile, such as starlings and silvereyes,
should be easier to scare, as they are not strongly attached to any particular territory.
Anti-predator strategies, such as use of vegetative cover and flocking behaviour, differ among
passerine bird species (Lima, 1990; Carere et al., 2009), and these factors can determine
different responses between species to methods of control, while differing foraging strategies
and patterns of movement can affect the severity and type of damage to grapes (Tracey et al.,
15
2007). Stanley & Lill (2001) noted that plant morphology could affect avian frugivore
foraging, as can the morphology (e.g. bill shape) of the individual bird species. Some
fundamental knowledge of such factors in individual bird species may give an indication as to
whether the presence of the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) can mitigate and
modify the damaging behaviour of these birds in the vineyard.
The major pest passerine bird species that are responsible for most damage to grapes and
subsequent economic loss in New Zealand vineyards include European starlings, European
blackbirds, song thrushes (Turdus philomelos) and self-introduced silvereyes (Watkins, 1999;
Saxton, 2004). All of these species are responsible for differing types and levels of damage
and/or loss to wine grapes due to their biological and ecological characteristics, which are
outlined below.
2.2 Starling
The starling, a member of the Sturnidae family is a common, introduced, small to medium-
sized bird (21cm), with both sexes having a glossy black plumage, with a red- purple sheen
and white spots (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Tracey & Saunders, 2003). Starlings may have
up to three broods per year, with 4-6 offspring per clutch (Feare, 1984). Nesting takes place in
holes of trees, buildings, or cliffs and while they do not normally defend their feeding areas,
they will defend their nesting habitat rigorously (Heather & Robertson, 1996). Starlings are a
gregarious species that feed in flocks, which can comprise up to 1,000 birds (Heather &
Robertson, 1996), and congregating at roosts, they will converge at dusk and disperse again at
dawn (Feare, 1984; Heather & Robertson, 1996; Bentz et al., 2007).
Tracey & Saunders (2003) identified the European starling as the most abundant species in
Australian vineyards, reporting them to be responsible for 80-90% of all bird damage in
central New South Wales vineyards. Other reports have implicated the starling; as well as
being responsible for widespread damage to other crops such as olives and stone fruit; it is the
most destructive introduced grape damaging bird species in Australasia (Somers & Morris,
2002; Bomford & Sinclair, 2002; Tracey et al., 2007; Bentz et al., 2007).
Development of a diverse and omnivorous diet (Feare, 1984; Tracey & Saunders, 2003) and
the evolution of an anatomy and physiology that has adapted a complex foraging ability,
which includes eating almost anything when food resources are scarce (Beecher, 1978; Tracey
16
& Saunders, 2003), have enabled the starling to survive in harsh dry and environments. These
factors may provide a good indication for explaining their evolutionary success as a
colonising species.
In the vineyard
Starlings tend to forage in cultivated areas, perching in large, open canopy trees and power
lines (Porter et al., 1994) that often surround vineyards, approaching the vines aerially and
descending into the vines to feed (Somers & Morris, 2002). Plucking grapes, including unripe
fruit (Mason & Clarke, 2000), they will carry the grape back to a perch to feed (Somers &
Morris, 2002), and are able to remove more grapes in a shorter time than other species (Boyce
et al., 1999). Preference for red grape varieties has been reported (DeHaven, 1974) amongst
starlings, while another study (Tobin et al., 1991) on bird damage to cherries found no
specific difference in preference to darker-coloured cultivars.
Starlings and other birds often feed in large flocks and this behaviour may be interpreted as an
anti-predator response to birds of prey (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Carere, 2009), while larger,
more compact flocks often signify greater predation pressure (Carere, 2009). Often using the
same foraging sites for extended periods, the appetite of the starling is not only diverse, but
also voracious and once it establishes a feeding pattern, it may be difficult to frighten away,
(Flaherty, 1992; Tracey & Saunders, 2003). During the ripening period for grapes, starling
flocks tend to increase (Tracey & Saunders, 2003), which may be due to the greater food
availability (Feare, 1984). Unfortunately, for vineyards, large numbers of juvenile starlings
congregate after the breeding period and this often coincides with the véraison period (Tracey
et al., 2007).
A South African study by Herrmann & Anderson (2007), found that many pest bird species in
vineyards displayed a bimodal feeding pattern, which showed peak feeding times on grapes
early to late morning and again in the late afternoon. However, according to Tracey &
Saunders (2003), it is difficult to target starling feeding times, because, unlike other pest birds
in vineyards, they do not appear to have a consistent peak feeding period.
17
2.3 Blackbird
The blackbird, a member of the thrush (Muscicapidae) family, is another common introduced
bird found in both suburban and rural habitats. The adult male (25 cm) is black with a bright
orange bill and the female, dark brown with a paler throat and a brown and duller orange bill
(Heather & Robertson, 1996). Most pairs nest 2-5 times per year, raising 2-3 broods,
averaging 3-4 eggs per clutch (Heather & Robertson, 1996). Primarily a solitary, ground-
dwelling species (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Watkins, 1999; Saxton, 2004; Herrmann &
Anderson, 2007), it is crepuscular, favouring the cover of undergrowth for foraging (McCann,
1953; Watkins, 1999; Jensen, 1974; Porter et al., 1994). Part of the blackbird’s foraging time
is not spent essentially eating; instead, it appears to be vigilantly observing for predators
(Saxton, 2004).
The blackbirds’ predominant food choice is earthworms (Oligochaeta), followed by other
invertebrates, and supplemented by fruit in autumn (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Hampe,
2001; Chamberlain et al., 2007; Tracey et al., 2007). They defend their territory from April to
January and will often assemble at a good food source in the autumn (Heather & Robertson,
1996). Hampe (2010) observed that the blackbird concentrated in large trees during the
nesting period, which is late August to December in New Zealand (Heather & Robertson,
1996). In New Zealand, they are most commonly found nesting in forks of shrubs and hedges
that are at least 1-10 m above ground (Heather & Robertson, 1996).
In the vineyard
Blackbirds can be found in vineyards throughout the year and are a serious pest (Heather &
Robertson, 1996; Saxton, 2004; Tracey et al., 2007), darting up into vines from the ground,
plucking a whole grape, removing it from the underside of the bunches, immediately
consuming or taking it back to cover (Watkins, 1999; Saxton, 2002, 2004; Herrmann &
Anderson, 2007). Saxton et al. (2004) suggested that blackbirds are sensitive to ripening cues
in grapes, such as aroma, which may be one factor in their increased depredation on grapes at
the véraison to harvest period. Grapes located closer to the ground receive more damage from
blackbirds and song thrushes than from other bird species (Watkins, 1999).
Blackbirds are often found in scrubby sites in vineyards that do not appear to provide
optimum cover, and they take both unripe grapes and ripe grapes with increased pressure as
winter approaches (Saxton, 2004). This behaviour is possibly signalling an overriding
18
physiological/nutritional need to gain weight in preparation for the winter (Bairlein, 2002,
Saxton et al., 2011), which may supersede risk perception or avoidance of danger, making
them difficult to eradicate from vineyards due to this requirement.
Frugivorous bird species including blackbirds often forage on red-black fruits (Sorenson,
1981;Willson et al., 1990) and may not in effect be due to preference, instead merely to the
prevalence of this colour in many fruits (Willson et al., 1990). Blackbirds in vineyards appear
to prefer purple grapes in the winter months (Saxton et al., 2011). This finding may be
relevant to this thesis, as the grape variety studied is the Pinot Noir cultivar, which is a purple
grape when ripe.
2.4 Song Thrush
The song thrush, another member of the Muscicapidae family, is found in both suburban and
rural habitats. Its ecology and foraging behaviour are similar to the blackbird. The song thrush
(23 cm) has a mid- brown dorsal side and a whitish underside with conspicuous dark brown
spots on its breast. Like the blackbird, it nests 2-5 times per year in late August- December,
raising 2-3 broods, with an average of 3-4 eggs per clutch. Nests are similar in aspect to the
blackbird (Heather & Robertson, 1996).
Along with earthworms (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Gruar et al., 2003; Peach et al., 2004),
their favoured foods include snails (Gastropoda) (Nye, 1975; Heather & Robinson, 1996).
Like the blackbird, thrushes supplement their diet with fruit, including grapes in vineyards
(Heather & Robinson, 1996). Unlike the blackbird, there is a paucity of literature on actual
levels of damage caused by the thrush, and damage data are difficult to separate between the
two species.
In the vineyard
Scrubby vegetation is an important cover for the thrush (Mason, 2000). Song thrushes feed on
the ground (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Herrmann & Anderson, 2007) and will consequently
take grapes that are located closer to the ground (Watkins, 1999). One study has shown that
song thrushes prefer white grapes to red/purple ones (Watkins, 1999).
19
2.5 Silvereye
The silvereye a member of the Zosteropidae family, is a small (12 cm) self-introduced species
to New Zealand from Australia and the South-Western Pacific, and is semi-protected (see N.Z
Wildlife Act, 1953) (Heather & Robertson, 1986). It has a small olive green/yellow head and
upper surface of wings, rump, and tail with abdomens that vary from light brown to grey-
brown or white. It has a characteristic white eye ring (Heather & Robertson, 1986; Tracey et
al., 2007). Nesting takes place 1-15 m above ground towards the outermost branches of a tree,
shrub, or tree fern.
Laying their eggs from September to February, they may raise 2-3 broods annually, averaging
3 eggs per clutch. Nests are suspended from twigs and foliage (Heather & Robertson, 1986).
Establishing pairs, they are territorial during nesting, however later in the summer they form
flocks. They are fast moving, seasonally migratory, and elusive and can be found in native
and exotic forest, scrub, orchards from sea level to the tree line, and often in suburban gardens
during the winter months (Heather & Robertson, 1986).
Silvereyes will congregate around an important food source and will feed in flocks, which
may be an anti-predator strategy. Diet is varied, and includes invertebrates, nectar, seeds, and
fruit (Heather & Robertson, 1986). Although mostly taking fruit from native trees, they do
inflict substantial damage to commercial crops, including grapes (Heather & Robertson, 1986;
Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Tracey et al., 2007). They feed off the ground and in high
canopies, puncturing fruit with sharp bills, which create a small diamond-shaped peck mark,
lapping at the flesh with brush tipped tongues (Tracey & Saunders, 2003). Peck marks attract
wasps due to the exuding sugar and allows for entrances of serious diseases such as Botrytis
cinerea, threatening many commercial crops (Tracey et al., 2007).
Tracey & Saunders (2003) identified the silvereye as contributing up to 25 % of the total bird
damage to Australian horticultural crops. Losses are greater when nectar sources become
scarce and during migration when high-energy sources are required (Tracey & Saunders,
2003; Tracey et al., 2007).
In the vineyard
Silvereye numbers in vineyards have increased with the expansion of vineyards in New
Zealand, with increased fruit resources supplementing their nutritional requirements (Saxton,
20
2004). Although grapes may not be a nutritional necessity for silvereyes, they may supply the
extra water and energy that is required at a dry time of year (Saxton, 2004). While other pest-
bird species are found in vineyards throughout the year, silvereye presence is mostly common
in the autumn as the grapes ripen, likely being driven by environmental factors such as colder
temperatures in their summer habitats (Stanley & Lill, 2001, 2002; Saxton, 2004).
Large flocks congregate in vineyards (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Tracey et al., 2007),
foraging higher in the canopy than other pest birds (Saxton, 2002), and are not often seen
foraging on the ground. They appear to spend more time feeding than other pest species (e.g.
blackbirds, Saxton, 2004), darting in and out of the vines (Tracey et al., 2007) and pecking at
the grapes (Fig. 2.1). Pecking grapes is considered worse than taking the whole grape, as it
can be the catalyst to introducing diseases, which taint the wine (Tracey & Saunders, 2003;
Saxton, 2004).
Figure 2.1: Pinot Noir grape bunch displaying peck damage caused by silvereyes
Silvereyes choose medium leafy trees to perch in around the vineyard and exhibit a strong
preference for accessible fruits, attacking fruit that that can be easily pecked (Stanley & Lill,
2001). Peck-damaged grapes are an indirect measure of silvereye presence. A study by
DeHaven (1974) demonstrating the damage that pecking can produce from species like the
21
silvereye, found almost 80% of grape bunches damaged had peck damage, rather than whole
grapes missing, highlighting the destructive presence of this species in vineyards.
There are different opinions on what colour fruit preference silvereyes have. Puckey et al.
(1996) noted they preferred red, to white or yellow fruit with Watkins (1999) finding that
silvereyes were attracted to purple grapes over green and Saxton (2004) finding that they
preferred green, to purple/black in the autumn/winter months only.
2.6 Other passerine species
Other passerine bird species commonly found in New Zealand vineyards but are not
implicated in grape damage include; finches (Fringillidae), Australian magpies (Gymnorhina
tibicen), and sparrows (Passer domesticus), although there is some discrepancy over sparrows
causing significant damage to grapes, particularly in Australia (see chapter one). Mynas
(Acridotheres tristis), have an equally damaging presence in vineyards, but are found only in
the northern North Island of New Zealand, so they are not pertinent to this thesis.
22
Chapter 3
The Australasian harrier as a biological control agent
3.1 Introduction
The focus of this thesis is the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) and its potential
capability as a biological control agent, in the management of pest passerine bird species,
found in New Zealand vineyards. Hoddle (2004, p.39) described biological control as “the
intentional use by humans of parasitoid, predator, pathogen, antagonist, or competitor
populations to suppress a pest population, thereby making the pest less abundant and
damaging than it would be in the absence of these organisms”. Biological control in the
context of this project is slightly different in that the harrier is not essentially expected to
“suppress” passerine bird populations. However, the harrier’s predatory behaviour, which is
not usually lethal, and passerine birds’ inherent fear response (Conover, 1979; Hothem & De
Haven, 1982; Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et al., 2006) to all
raptors may result in a change of local distribution, making the passerine bird population in
vineyards “less abundant and damaging” as Hoddle described.
Conservation biological control (CBC) uses habitat management to increase the number of
natural predators in an area (Cullen et al., 2010). The Australasian harrier is often located in
the same habitat (vineyards in this case) as pest birds and therefore has the potential to
provide an effective biological control presence in this area. CBC offers an alternative to other
methods of pest passerine bird control (see chapter 1). It uses environmental modification or
ecological engineering to increase the potential for the natural enemy (in this instance the
harrier), to make an impact on pest species (passerine birds), by providing the harrier with
ecological resources, such as supplementary food (DeBach, 1964; Ehler, 1998; Gurr et al.,
2003).
Birds of prey (raptors) have been used around the world as biological control agents in
various settings. Most pest bird populations have an innate fear of predatory birds (Conover,
1979; Hothem & De Haven, 1982; Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et
al., 2006), and will demonstrate avoidance behaviours to counteract predation. While
Australasian harriers do not generally take prey on the wing (Baker-Gabb, 1978; Robertson,
23
1980; Marchant & Higgins, 1993), it is anticipated that the generalised inherent fear response
of prey, rather than an increased risk of predation could be exploited.
Studies of other harriers have highlighted their biological control potential by noting that the
harrier’s daily activity patterns (i.e. hunting times) overlap with passerine birds foraging
times, and therefore the probability of them encountering each other is high (Terraube &
Arroyo, 2011). Herrmann & Anderson (2007) reported that pest bird species display a
bimodal feeding pattern, feeding more regularly on grapes early to late morning and in the
late afternoon, while harriers finish hunting three hours after sunrise and commence again
four hours before sunset (Simmons, 2000), coinciding with passerine bird activity.
This chapter discusses the ecology of the Australasian harrier, highlighting the effects that
food resources have on raptor ecology and outlining the effects of supplementary feeding on
members of other raptor species, which may translate to the Australasian harrier.
Supplementary feeding will attempt to attract and maintain Australasian harriers in vineyards
and this will provide the foundation for effective biological control activity; decreasing
passerine bird populations and subsequent grape damage.
3.2 The ecology of the Australasian harrier
The Australasian harrier is the only member of the Accipitridae family to breed in New
Zealand (Wong, 2002). It can also be found in Southeastern Australia, and other islands of the
South Pacific (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Wong, 2002). The diurnal Australasian harrier is
common amongst the small contingent of New Zealand raptors, is self-introduced, likely
arriving between Maori and European arrival (Holdaway & Worthy, 1997), and is semi-
protected (may be hunted or killed only if it is causing damage to land or property, including
crops, N. Z. Wildlife Act, 1953). Unlike most native New Zealand birds, the harrier has
benefited from clearing of native forest for pastureland, which has increased optimal habitat
for searching for small prey, such as rats (Rattus sp.), mice (Mus musculus), lizards,
(Scincidae/Gekkonidae) invertebrates and nestlings (Heather & Robertson, 1996). Much of
the harrier’s natural diet is supplemented by animal carcasses, which is the result of road-kill,
readily available from New Zealand roadways (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Heather &
Robertson, 1996).
24
3.2.1 Description
The Australasian harrier is sexually dimorphic; the females (850 g) are larger than the males
(650 g). It is a large brown slim-bodied raptor with long-fingered wings held in a “V” shape;
the tail is long and slightly rounded. Juveniles are a dark brown, almost chocolate colour with
a distinctive white patch on the nape and have a rich brown upper tail and brown iris, while
the adult form is lighter coloured. Adults have a pale facial disc and head, with upper body
parts dark brown. The underbody is buff to reddish brown, streaked heavily with blackish
brown on the breast, abdomen, and flanks. The under wings are barred at the tips. The upper
tail is white and the lower is light-brown barred with dark brown. Adults have a yellow iris;
the female iris is a paler yellow than the male. Harriers become paler with age and very old
males can be identified by frosty-grey upper parts, pale buff under parts, and white under
wings (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Heather & Robertson, 1996).
3.2.2 Feeding
Hunting by day, the harrier uses a hovering, slow-quartering movement, and then a drop-and-
pounce mode of hunting (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Heather & Robertson, 1996) or, as
sBaker–Gabb (1978) describes, a short dive backwards or a hover and dive forwards, mode of
attack, on ground dwelling prey/carrion. The harrier rarely catches prey on the wing unlike
the New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) that actively pursues its prey (Baker-Gabb,
1981a; Heather & Robertson, 1996).
The diet of the Australasian harrier includes hares (Lepus europeus), rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus), birds’ eggs, large invertebrates, frogs, fish, and reptiles. In New Zealand, a large
proportion of their diet includes animal carcasses, particularly road-kill (Marchant & Higgins,
1993). Robertson (1980) found that the Australasian harrier preferred brown rats (Rattus
norvegicus) and domestic pullets (Gallus domesticus) to rabbits. He also reported that
brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), short-finned eel (Anguilla australis) and skinned
rabbits were all preferred to unskinned rabbits. Fennell (1980) reported that Australasian
harriers preferred hare to rabbit, although rabbits were still preferred to brushtail possum.
Wong (2002) found that lagomorphs were the preferred food, comprising 36% of the diet,
with rats at 15% and possums at 14%. The rest of the mammalian prey taken in his study
consisted of mice (Mus musculus), sheep (Ovis aries) (afterbirth after lambing and dead
lambs) and hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). In New Zealand in the spring and summer,
there is much reliance on eggs and nestlings as a food source (Baker-Gabb, 1981a).
25
3.2.3 Breeding
The male harrier establishes its territory from May-June. However, the female does not return
to the breeding territory until June-August (Heather & Robertson, 1996). Courtship begins in
June and this may continue until October. The courtship ritual involves a series of
semicircular dives, often with a loud call and is often the only time a harrier can be heard
calling (Marchant & Higgins, 1993).
Nest building begins in September/October and usually consists of building a low platform of
bracken (Pteridium spp.), manuka (Leptospermum scoparium), raupo (Typha spp.), and flax
(Phormium spp.) stalks that may be topped with cabbage tree (Cordyline australis) leaves,
grass and rushes. Nests are usually found in swampy areas covered in rushes, bracken fern,
long grasses, or young pine plantations (Heather & Robertson, 1996). From September-
December, 2-7 eggs are laid and the female incubates the eggs for approximately thirty days.
The male feeds the female throughout this time until the fledging of the chicks. Chicks fledge
at 43-46 days and remain with their parents for approximately one week after fledging.
Females may breed at 1 year, but the male may not commence breeding until it reaches 2-3
years. Pairs will return to the same territory year after year and occasionally the male may be
polygynous (Baker-Gabb, 1981b; Heather & Robertson, 1996).
3.2.4 Social behaviour
The harrier is a solitary bird and only becomes territorial during the breeding season. In the
winter they may congregate in large communal roosts in secluded swampy areas (Baker-
Gabb, 1981b; Heather & Robertson, 1996).Where abundant food sources are located, harriers
have been noted in loose flocks of 2-5 birds. The core and home territories appear to differ
between breeding and non-breeding seasons. In Wong’s (2002) study, radio-tracked harriers
showed the movement of the Australasian harrier at both breeding and non-breeding periods.
The breeding core home range was 158 ha (50% MCP), while the entire home range was 373
ha (100% MCP). The non-breeding core range was 566 ha (50% MCP) and the home range
was 763 ha (100% MCP).
3.3 Food resource availability effects on Australasian harrier populations
Adequate food resources are without doubt the fundamental requirement for any avian
population. Limited food–supplies may affect raptors’ range sizes, breeding biology and
26
ultimately population densities (Newton, 1979; Newton, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981a; Kenward,
1982; Knight & Anderson, 1990).
3.3.1 Density and range size
Newton (1979), found that the availability of food was essential to explain population levels,
but was evidenced more subtly by its effects on spatial behaviour and reproduction. A clear
example of a correlation between food resource availability and raptor density was
demonstrated by Village (1982) where he found that kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) numbers
varied in relation to vole (Microtus agrestis) abundance. Baker Gabb (1981a) suggested that a
raptor would hunt where they find a particular prey species at its highest density and Thirgood
et al. (2003), where they can attain the highest energy gain.
Where food may have once been in abundance, prey stocks can become exhausted due to
over-predation, inclement weather and related inadequate food supplies for the prey
themselves, or diseases. When prey density diminishes, it is expected that individual raptors
could be compelled to move out of a familiar hunting area or territory in search of greater
food supplies. Raptors’ range size is dependent on prey availability (Kenward, 1982) and
when food supplies become scarce, the harrier range size widens (Newton et al., 1986). In a
radio-tracking study of the ranging behaviour and dispersion of the European sparrowhawk
(Accipiter nisus), Newton & Marquiss (1982) found the greater the quantity of food supplied
by the male bird to the female the more sedentary the female hawk became. Habitats that
provide more prey may influence harrier range sizes retaining them in a smaller area or
territory (Wong, 2002).
3.3.2 Breeding
Raptors represent some of the most stable breeding populations found in all bird species and
many raptor species will nest in the same place year after year, and will occasionally, use the
same nests where stable food supplies are present (Newton, 1979). Among other factors, such
as nesting habitat and territorial behaviour, availability of food has an effect on raptor
breeding success, including the rate of breeding and the rate of recruitment (Newton, 1980;
Johnson, 1996; Salamolard et al., 2000). Egg size is also affected by food availability (Baker-
Gabb, 1981b; Simmons, 2004) and the number of eggs and fledgling success are directly
related to food provision by the male to the female during the breeding season (Baker- Gabb,
1981b).
27
3.3.3 Dispersal from natal site
Birds will disperse from areas that have fewer resources (Greenwood & Harvey, 1982; Todd
et al., 2007). Many factors may influence whether an animal chooses to disperse from its
breeding/natal area and if so, how far they travel. While juvenile dispersal from the natal area
is expected, premature dispersal from the nesting area can result due to food shortages
(Kenward, 1996) and birds may not return to their natal or previous breeding area because of
food availability restraints (Greenwood & Harvey, 1982). Additionally, food availability due
to competition from other community members may have effects on whether a bird leaves its
breeding/natal areas (Greenwood & Harvey, 1982; Todd et al., 2007).
3.4 Supplementary feeding effects on harrier biology
“Feeding influences almost every aspect of bird ecology, including reproduction, behaviour,
demography, and distribution” (Robb et al., 2008). Therefore, it could be argued that where
abundance of prey is low, or access to prey is limited, due to constraints, such as height and
density of surrounding vegetation (Simmons, 2000), supplementary feeding could enhance
harrier population numbers in a particular location.
Supplementation or augmentation of food supply to raptors by human intervention was
previously discussed by Houston (1996). Houston (1996) found that raptors, (old-world
vultures, Accipitridae: Aegypiinae), responded well to “vulture restaurants”, where food was
provided regularly. Feeding stations not only provided supplementary food, but also became a
reliable resource. In times of low-food resources, these stations were fundamentally important
in maintaining birds in the area of the station (Houston, 1996).
The aim of this thesis was to encourage into selected vineyards populations of the
Australasian harrier and to retain them by supplementary feeding off raised tables. By
providing suitable food sources at regular intervals to harriers, it is thought this might
engender fidelity to vineyards where feeding tables are located, including establishing
breeding areas in or near vineyard areas that have suitable habitat. Vineyards often do not
have suitable breeding habitat, however the environment around many vineyards in this study
could provide this. Additionally, having feeding stations established may lessen the need for
the female to leave her breeding grounds; the female Australasian harrier, when no longer
being fed by the male, will leave the area and disperse in search of food (Baker-Gabb, 1981b).
28
Marchant & Higgins (1993) reported the Australasian harrier was usually faithful to summer
and winter breeding grounds and therefore having a constant food supply in place may
provide the necessary incentive for the individual to stay in the area (near a vineyard) before,
during, and after breeding.
3.4.1 Density and range size
Supplementary feeding is linked to increased raptor population densities (Houston, 1996;
Amar & Redpath, 2002; González et al., 2006; Robb et al., 2008). Additionally,
supplementary feeding has a positive effect on over-winter survival of harrier populations,
including both juvenile and adult populations (Thirgood, et al., 2003; Robb et al., 2008), and
it can be responsible for grand-scale changes in general bird population dynamics and
migratory behaviour affecting harriers’ range size (Robb et al., 2008). Knight & Anderson
(1990), reported that establishing a feeding programme increased numbers of bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) by shifting the population from an area of low food to areas of
higher food availability.
3.4.2 Breeding
While not all studies concur with every aspect of the breeding biology of harriers and other
raptors and their relationship to plentiful food supplies, the consensus appears that an
adequate food supply where supplementation by humans has been implemented, has enhanced
breeding success. Examples include a greater number of breeding females, advancement of
egg laying, clutch size, hatching rate and fledgling success (Dijkstra et al., 1980; Korpimaki,
1985; Simmons, 1994; Redpath et al., 2001; González et al., 2006; Robb et al., 2008).
Supplementary feeding can also have an effect on when the juvenile raptors will disperse
from the natal site. Kenward et al. (1993) found that juvenile hawks (Accipiter gentilis) when
provided with supplementary food, dispersed later than those that did not receive
supplementary food.
3.5 Conclusion
While encouraging Australian harriers to feed in the vineyard with the aid of regular
supplementary feeding, it is hoped that these individuals will exhibit philopatric behaviour;
engaging in breeding and nesting activities in and around the vineyard areas season after
season. With the regular food supply, this may negate the need for widening the harrier’s
range in search of prey and it will encourage juvenile subjects associated with the vineyard to
29
delay dispersal and remain within the vineyard surrounds. Increasing harrier densities will
expectantly provide an effective biological control service and could result in greater
protection for the vineyard from passerine birds and the consequent grape damage.
30
Chapter 4
Neophobia to Neophilia: Manipulating the hunting and
feeding behaviour of the Australasian harrier
4.1 Abstract
A regular supplementary feeding programme from raised tables was attempted to attract
Australasian harriers into a Canterbury vineyard and several Martinborough vineyards in
order to deter pest passerine birds from foraging on grapes in vineyards. For feeding from the
table to become established, the harrier would first need to overcome any neophobic
tendencies toward the table. Regular feeding behaviour from the raised table which ranged
from 3-5 months only occurred in two out of the ten sites, while at other sites intermittent or
no feeding was observed. Neophobic tendencies and the lack of motivation to exploit the bait
provided on the raised tables may have been related to several factors. Abundant non-
manipulated food sources for the harrier were available at many sites, including the
surrounding landscape, and along with human presence and intervention at some sites, and
negative interspecific relationships at others, these factors may account for the low success
rate of this trial.
4.2 Introduction
Attracting harrier populations, by providing a consistent food source, particularly during the
grape ripening period may be the key to mitigating grape damage caused by pest passerine
birds in New Zealand vineyards. Evidence that raptors could have a role in mitigating bird
damage in vineyards has been demonstrated by the “Falcons for Grapes” project which has
employed the use of another New Zealand raptor, the New Zealand falcon (Falco
novaeseelandiae), in Marlborough vineyards to address the significant pest bird problem
(Saxton, 2010). Translocated from its natural habitat to vineyards, the falcon was
supplementary fed with day-old cock chicks and its increased presence in vineyards has
shown positive results in the war against grape damage, helping to control pest passerine bird
populations (Saxton, 2010; Kross et al., 2011). However, the endemic New Zealand falcon is
rare and translocation is a complex process.
31
Anecdotal evidence of Australasian harriers being attracted to a Hawke’s Bay vineyard by
supplementary food on a raised feeding table and consequent decreased grape damage, caused
by passerine birds has been reported. Feeding off a raised table elevated the harrier and gave a
greater field of view for passerine bird species to sight the harrier, thus deterring them from
entering the vineyard (Beard, R., viticulturalist, pers. comm., July 2009).
An abundant, diurnal, medium- sized, native New Zealand raptor, the Australasian harrier
(Circus approximans) is a generalist and opportunistic feeding raptor, which may provide an
explanation for its ecological success throughout New Zealand. It is found in open country
slowly quartering areas of long grass, reeds, rushes, and crops on the lookout for prey species
(Baker-Gabb, 1981). Harriers hunt by gliding low over the ground and surprising their prey,
using a dive-and-attack approach on unsuspecting ground prey and will rarely attack prey on
wing (Baker-Gabb, 1981). Raptors, including harriers will patrol and hunt where they find a
particular prey species at its highest density and where they can attain the highest energy gain
(Baker Gabb, 1981; Preston, 1990; Thirgood et al., 2003; Lambertucci et al., 2009).
For a change in feeding behaviour, i.e. feeding off a raised table, the Australasian harrier
would need to exhibit signs of behavioural flexibility or ecologically-innovative behaviour
(Greenberg, 2003). The Australasian harrier has already demonstrated this to some degree.
Foraging behaviour flexibility has been demonstrated by its successful adaptation to
anthropogenic changes, as seen in the New Zealand landscape, where animal carcasses found
on New Zealand roads after collisions with vehicular traffic, now plays an important role in
food provision (Robertson, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981). Harriers are frequently seen patrolling
the roadways for animal carcasses, which have been the victims of speeding vehicles, and are
often witnessed feeding unperturbed on roadsides with large volumes of traffic passing by.
Neophobia is the aversion behaviour an animal initially displays to a place, object, or food
source and neophilia is the natural attraction an animal displays to a place, object, or food
source (Greenberg, 2003). Greenberg (1990, 2003)suggested that the neophobic response to a
novel object is not necessarily a permanent behaviour, and that generalist avian species tend
to exhibit lower neophobic tendencies (Greenberg & Mettke-Hofmann, 2001; Mettke-
Hofmann et al., 2002). The Australasian harrier is a generalist species so it could be assumed
that these findings might be relevant to its response to elevated feeding tables.
32
The need or motivation to feed presumably affects the neophobic response (Mettke-
Hofmann, et al., 2002), where habitat selection by a species with respect to food resources is
affected by the level of energy required (hunger level), and perceived mortality risk (Grand &
Dill, 1999; Lambertucci et al., 2009). The quantity of food and perceived mortality risk will
also affect bird distributions in heterogeneous environments (Lambertucci et al., 2009). An
environment that is supplemented with accessible valuable food resources, including quality
and quantity (Matthiopoulos, 2003), may be of greater benefit than any perceived risks
proposed in that environment. In such a scenario, supplementary feeding may eventually
contribute to an increased population of harriers in one particular area. Profitable feeding is an
experience that animals can learn (Greenberg, 1983), and for the harrier to feed from a raised
table it must first overcome its fear of novel objects, in this case the feeding table, and the
attraction to the novel object (table) needs to be established through provision of regular and
abundant food resource supplies.
Feeding other harrier species off raised tables or poles has been successful. Simmons (2000)
supplemented the diet of selected pairs of the African marsh harrier (Circus ranivorus) with
mice (Mus musculans), mole rats (Bathyergus spp.) guinea pigs (Procavia spp.), fish, and
birds. These were placed on 1-2 metres high posts at typical feeding sites where he reported
that all prey were readily accepted. Redpath et al. (2001) noted in a study of supplementary
feeding of hen harriers (Circus cyaneus), that when harriers were fed on perches 1.5 metres
high, 91% of the food disappeared by the next day. Amar & Redpath (2002) also found
harrier feeding successful with the use of 1.5 metres high feeding tables.
In a study by Reinert (1984), on the use of introduced perches by raptors, ten species opted for
dead trees and only four used man-made perches for activities such as resting, hunting and
feeding. The northern (American name) harrier (Circus cyaneus) in Reinert’s study differed
from most of the other raptor species; while it did rest on the man-made perch, it did not
consume prey on any of them. Supplementary food was not placed on these perches.
Ecologically-successful raptor species have low neophobic tendencies (Biondi et al., 2010)
and it could be argued that for the Australasian harrier to have become ecologically successful
(evidenced by the abundant populations in New Zealand) it may demonstrate low neophobic
tendencies and can display ecological innovation. The Australasian harrier has demonstrated
ecological plasticity particularly related to its generalist dietary adaptation to the New Zealand
33
environment. Because of this factor and assuming its ability to overcome any possible
neophobic tendencies, along with hunger caused by seasonal lack of availability of food and
the bird’s life cycle, it was expected that feeding from a raised table was achievable.
First, we wanted to discover if it was possible to establish this novel feeding behaviour and
second, to maintain a regular feeding regime where the harrier would frequently visit the
vineyard where the table was located. It was envisaged that it would take time for harriers to
overcome any neophobic tendencies toward the table, however it was assumed that by the
beginning of the grape ripening period when bird pressure is greatest, regular feeding by
harriers from the raised feeding tables would be achieved. As a result, it was anticipated that
the regular presence of the harrier would then act as a deterrent to passerine bird in vineyards
by exploiting their innate fear of raptors and latterly decreasing grape damage (see chapters 6
& 7).
4.3 Methods
The initial pilot study site was Bentwood Wines, Tai Tapu, Canterbury and the project was
then expanded to include nine Martinborough, Wairarapa, vineyards (see chapter 1). Study
sites were chosen in consultation with the winegrowers principally because past grape damage
had been prevalent in these areas. Increased harrier presence in these areas would provide the
most benefit to the vineyard because pest bird pressure was the greatest in these areas. The
Canterbury site was chosen in a Pinot Blanc cultivar block and the Martinborough sites were
all Pinot Noir cultivars to enable comparability.
In an attempt to reflect the success anecdotally reported in the Hawke’s Bay vineyard, where
several harriers were visiting the feeding table regularly, feeding tables were constructed in a
similar pattern. Tables were constructed of a 900 mm by 900 mm white painted wooden board
that could be detached from a 2.0 m pole on a tripod stand (Fig. 4.1). The wooden board was
attached so that it could be raised and lowered to a desired height to aid with the habituation
process of feeding off a raised table.
34
Figure 4.1: Feeding table attached 200mm off the ground to 2.0m pole, with rabbit
carcasses as bait, at Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury.
4.3.1 Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury
The trial began in mid August (late winter) and finished end of December (summer) in 2009.
The feeding table stand (Fig 4.1) was placed in the headland (i.e. at the end of the vine rows)
of the vineyard close to a strainer post so that it could be tied by cable tie to the post to
provide stability. Bird damage appears to be prevalent at the outer vines or edge of the
vineyard and decreases towards the interior of the vineyard (Saxton, 2008) and having the
harrier feeding at this location would provide increased protection for the exterior grapes.
Hare (Lepus europeus) or rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) carcasses, opened to expose flesh
(Robertson, 1980; Baker Gabb, 1981; Knight & Anderson, 1990), were placed on the ground.
Bait was replaced every two-three days to keep the food source relatively fresh. Robertson
(1980), reported harriers in an unpublished field study, had indicated they preferred fresh
animal carcasses.
Largomorphs or hares and rabbits are reported to be the harrier’s preferred foods (Fennell,
1980, Baker-Gabb, 1981), and it was hoped these items would provide maximum attraction to
the site. In the initial stages, the removable table was placed on the ground next to the hare. A
24-hour time-lapse video camera was placed 6 metres from the table site. As it was a large
apparatus, it was placed against a backdrop of vegetation in attempt to disguise its presence,
35
or at least integrate it into the natural landscape, and to minimise further harrier shyness to a
novel object/situation. A daily assessment was made to see whether bait had been nibbled,
while time-lapse vide (Panasonic VHF VCR) equipment provided direct evidence of harrier
presence at the study sites. Video footage was downloaded daily and harrier activity was
recorded along with visual assessment of the animal carcass provided.
After evidence of regular feeding was established for one week the hare/rabbit were placed on
the table and wired down to prevent the harrier from dragging it off the table onto the ground.
Hares/rabbits were replaced depending on amount of flesh consumed or if they were no
longer fresh. After establishing regular feeding off the grounded table for one week, the table
was attached to the 2.0 m metal stand, reaching 200 mm off the ground, when connected.
Tables were raised in 0.5m increments after feeding was established at each height increment,
until reaching grapevine canopy height (2.0 m). Tables were raised in increments of 0.5m as
anecdotal evidence suggested that Australasian harriers in a Hawke’s Bay vineyard responded
to a slower elevation of the table, rather than immediately to canopy height (Beard, R.,
viticulturalist pers. comm., July 2009).
4.3.2 Martinborough vineyard sites
This trial took place from mid-October 2010 until mid-March 2011, in Martinborough,
Wairarapa. This was seasonally later than the site in Canterbury as a trapping and banding
programme was attempted in all vineyards over the winter (see chapter 9), but with little
success. Similar methods were employed in the Martinborough vineyards (n=9) as were used
in the Canterbury vineyard. Table placement was in consultation with individual
winegrowers, some were placed at the end of a vine row, some at the fence line, however all
tables were located at least three m from the damage-prone vines. Not all vineyards
commenced the feeding trial simultaneously, as new sites were recruited over time and some
vineyards sites were abandoned after three months because there was no harrier activity
despite bait being offered constantly.
Attempts to get harriers feeding off the elevated tables were completed over a period of five
months. However, a number of steps had to be omitted, and brush fencing (a type of
commercial landscaping material that is made of sticks and brush) was stapled to the table.
This was an attempt to reflect the natural ground surface that the harrier is accustomed to, and
also to provide grip for the harrier’s talons and encourage it to prolong its feeding time on the
36
table. Once establishment of feeding off the grounded table had taken place the table was
connected to the stand. It was then raised immediately to canopy height because of the
number of vineyards located in urban areas and the risk of predatory domestic animals that
were observed in the study site vicinity that could access the tables, which could potentially
confound results. For the Martinborough study Bushnell Trophy CamTM motion-sensored
cameras (model 119456) were also set up halfway through the trial (due to initial
unavailability). They were located approximately three metres from the table, strapped on to
vineyard posts or trees and helped to establish exactly what was taking the bait.
Data from the cameras was downloaded every two days, and it was noted whether bait was
taken. Bait this time consisted of hare, rabbit and one day-old cock chicks (Gallus
domesticus) in the spring season, as a previous study at Bentwood vineyard in Canterbury,
showed harriers preferred chicks to rabbit in the springtime (see chapter 5).
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury
Regular daily bait uptake (i.e. bait was taken every day) established approximately three
months after the commencement of the trial. Percentage of bait uptake per month (i.e. the day
of days when bait was taken per month) ranged from 16.7 % (5 days out of 30) in the second
month of the trial to 100 % (30 days out of 30 and 31 days out of 31) for the last two months
of the trial (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Days per month that bait was taken from the feeding table, at Bentwood
Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009. #of days= number of days per month bait was
placed on the feeding table, N= number of days per month bait was taken and % per
month = the percentage of bait uptake per month.
The number of days delay until feeding after different feeding treatments were implemented
ranged from two-eleven days (Table 4.2). Feeding took place after only two days when the
Month # of days N % per
month
August 19 14 73.7%
Sept 30 5 16.7%
Oct 31 15 48.4%
Nov 30 30 100%
Dec 31 31 100%
37
hare was initially placed on the ground next to the table. There was a three-day delay before
the bait was accessed again after the hare was wired to the table. After attachment of the table
to the stand (200 mm), no feeding took place for six days. After a site change was
implemented due to feral cat (Felis catus) activity, resumption of feeding then took eleven
days. When the table was to raised to 1.0 m delay to feeding was two days; at 1.5 m it took 4
days and at final grapevine canopy height (2.0 m) there was a delay of 2 days. Regular daily
feeding was established at this point.
Table 4.2 Number of days delay until feeding after different feeding treatments at
Bentwood Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009.
Bait Placement No. Days
Ground, next to table 2
Wired on to table 3
Table attached to stand (200mm off ground) 6
Site change (table attached to stand) 11
Table raised to 1.0m 2
Table raised to 1.5m 4
Table raised to 2.0m 2
Martinborough Vineyards
Initially it was unclear what was taking the bait from the tables until the camera was
employed. Bait placed on the ground was not taken in one vineyard, taken intermittently in
another and seven vineyards showed bait taken regularly. When bait was then placed on the
elevated table, five sites had no bait uptake by harriers, three had bait taken intermittently and
only one vineyard had harriers feeding regularly where 100 % of bait was taken every two
days. (Fig.4. 2) & (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Bait uptake by Australasian harriers at nine vineyards in Martinborough,
Wairarapa (2010-2011), showing number of vineyards where bait was either not taken,
intermittently, or regularly, when placed on the ground or placed on the elevated table.
Bait Placement Bait Uptake # of vineyards
Ground
Not taken 1
Taken intermittently 1
Taken regularly 7
Elevated(2m)
Not taken 5
Taken intermittently 3
Taken regularly 1
38
Figure 4.3: Australasian harrier feeding on rabbit carcass on a raised table at Pond
Paddock vineyard, Martinborough, Wairarapa, 2011.
4.5 Discussion
Despite the success of the pilot study in Canterbury, it proved difficult in Martinborough to
attain the desired effect of harriers feeding from most of the raised tables. This was
considered a fundamental behavioural requirement for the project and integral to attempt
mitigation of bird damage in the vineyards. Apart from the Canterbury site and one
Martinborough vineyard site, establishment of a consistent feeding pattern from all tables was
not achieved. Only one site in Martinborough established regular feeding when the table was
raised to canopy height straight from ground level, however there was still an initial
reluctance to feed, but was eventually achieved. One vineyard had no bait taken from the
ground by the harriers although two individuals were sighted flying over the study site. This
site was abandoned early in study; even though bait was not being taken after two weeks of
trial on the ground a table was still erected with bait supplied for another week in the
anticipation of attracting the harriers that had been seen flying over the vineyard. However, no
bait was taken from the table. Another vineyard had bait taken intermittently from the ground
but no sightings were witnessed when the table was attached to the pole and raised. When
39
tables were elevated to canopy height no harrier feeding occurred in five vineyards and three
showed sporadic or intermittent feeding activity on the raised tables.
Cats and magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) were also witnessed (latterly in the study period
when cameras were set up) taking bait from the study sites on both ground and table
treatments. A cat was witnessed taking bait from the lowered table (200 mm) at the Bentwood
vineyard, but was despatched by the vineyard owner. Magpies may have also had an effect on
harrier behaviour (see below). The role of other predatory presence in vineyards related to
passerine birds will be addressed in more detail in chapter 8.
The Canterbury site had several harriers regularly feeding from the raised table, but only one
out of the nine sites at Martinborough established a regular feeding pattern from the raised
tables. Reluctance to feed might be related to fear or at least a wary response to an unnatural
manipulated environment (Mettke-Hoffman et al., 2002), and/or the possibility of the
availability of easily accessible alternative food sources. Neophobia in the form of bait
shyness or reluctance to feeding from a novel object, such as the table used in this trial, could
be related to many factors.
While harriers were observed near all vineyard sites and appeared to be engaged in an
exploratory circling of the table sites, this did not result in taking any of the bait provided on
raised tables in five sites where earlier bait had been taken from the ground. Greenberg &
Mettke-Hofmann (2001) pointed out exploratory behaviour involves cost and a neophobic
response may be more beneficial to the bird. An unknown object, such as the table, may
expose the bird to predators or injury, and along with being less vigilant, the subject
consumes time and energy in this exploring process with perhaps no reward at the end. A
cost/benefit analysis is often weighed up by birds before accepting a new site or food
resource, where it is usually approached, explored and then sampled (Greenberg & Mettke-
Hofmann, 2001; Mettke- Hoffman et al., 2002).
Marples et al. (2007) indicated that with unfamiliar food sources birds may respond with “diet
wariness” and may even show reluctance to food consumption for extended periods, which
was evidenced at many sites in this trial. Perhaps not enough time and persistence were
assigned to the feeding trial and the “extended period of diet wariness” (Marples et al., 2007),
was just that: an extended period, which would eventually result in regular feeding at all sites.
Additionally, when feeding treatments were changed, as highlighted at the Canterbury site
40
(see table 4.2) reluctance to feed was noted and it is likely that regular feeding in all vineyard
sites may have occurred much sooner if food was offered on the ground only.
The site in Canterbury proved successful in terms of establishment of regular feeding from the
raised table. The trial was commenced at the end of winter where food sources were probably
scarce and the spring flush of nestlings was yet to be evident. The only site in Martinborough
to establish a regular harrier feeding was a late addition to the trial. This late addition was due
to the winegrower’s interest in harriers and enthusiasm to be part of the project. It was
difficult to determine whether this later commencement had any effect on this sites’
successful feeding establishment of harriers. Supplementary feeding at this site was
commenced in summer where the hot, dry climate also yielded a diminished contingent of
food sources (Simmons, 2000). Water sources, such as the many ditches, drains, and
transitory creeks/streams that are fed by the winter rains, were also depleted at this time. At
all the other sites supplementary feeding commenced in late spring, when there were
increased natural food sources such as nestlings, young mammals and lambing was in
progress. At these other sites, a regular feeding pattern was not established, or only
intermittently but did not remain consistent until grape ripening.
Spring is a time where food resources for harriers are in good supply. Many water sources in
the Martinborough area, which provide food in the form of invertebrates, frogs, nestlings, are
still full at this time of year. Baker-Gabb’s (1981) found that the Australasian harrier adapted
its diet to seasonal availability of prey species, where they took food according to availability
not preference. Additionally, springtime is concurrent with the lambing period.
Martinborough, before the advent of the wine industry, was predominantly a sheep farming
area, and while much land is now allocated to wine growing there still remains a considerable
(c. 3.5 million sheep in 2002 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/wairarapa-region/7) proportion of
sheep and some cattle farms interspersed amongst the vineyard areas. Anecdotal reports have
suggested that harriers will eat the dead lambs and afterbirth of the lambing process and
Baker-Gabb (1981) found that the largest proportion of the harriers’ diet in late winter/spring
was ovine (Ovis aries) carcasses. Harriers were seen in large numbers over farmland during
the lambing period. All these factors may explain the latency to feed by harriers in most
vineyards in this area. If a heightened sense of hunger is not a driving factor due to other
41
easily accessible food sources, the costs of exploring, approaching and exploiting a novel
object, such as a feeding table, may well outweigh the proposed benefits.
Harrier reluctance to feed from the tables could also be related to the provision of yet another
reliable food source. Road-kill, as it is commonly called, was seen around many vineyard
sites, particularly those situated by open road speed limits. Harriers were observed frequently
foraging on animal carcasses that had fallen victim to speeding traffic in both the Canterbury
and Martinborough locations. However, the sites (Canterbury and Martinborough) that saw
harriers feeding regularly contrasted in both volumes of traffic and speed and consequent
presence of road- kill. The Canterbury site was in close proximity to a main highway with
frequent road-kill observed, and The Martinborough site was situated on a gravel road that
was remote from any major highway and road-kill was sparse.
One vineyard that did not record harriers taking food off the ground was situated in an urban
area attached to a vineyard restaurant. While harriers had been regularly seen, as reported by
staff, their reluctance to take bait even from the ground could be related to human disturbance
or because other predators were taking the food before the harrier managed to access it. This
observation could be relevant to the previous discussion about the availability of other easily
accessible food sources located in the surrounding proximate landscape. The cost of the
perceived threat from humans may have outweighed the benefit of exploring the presented
food sources.
A final factor explaining the reluctance to feed could be related to the large Australian magpie
population found in the Martinborough vineyards and the surrounding landscape. These were
seen frequently harassing harriers throughout the area. Often two or more magpies could be
seen diving at a solitary harrier, moving it out of their territory. Magpies see harriers as a
threat as they will often predate on their young and will at times compete with them for other
food sources such as carrion (Morgan et al., 2006). Magpies were witnessed via camera trap
(n=68) at the study sites and some were observed consuming food put out for the harriers. In
the vineyard where regular feeding was established magpie counts were much lower (n=2)
and the total number of magpies (n=66) observed in the other vineyards where only
intermittent feeding took place was greater.
42
4.6 Conclusion
While two vineyards (Canterbury and Martinborough) in this trial showed a regular feeding
pattern by harriers, several were not as successful, and harrier visits were either intermittent or
absent at most sites. It was hoped that motivation to feed, or hunger would negate the fear of a
novel object (table). However it was not known at what level of hunger, nor was it within the
scope of this project to measure it, would be necessary to overcome neophobic tendencies and
exploit the bait provided on the raised tables. Equally, that it was indeed a neophobic response
from the harrier not to exploit the feeding tables may be only an assumption and perhaps more
time and persistence is required to establish affinity to the feeding tables. Supposedly, in
many instances non-manipulated food sources for the harrier were available in greater or
lessening quantities throughout its territory and throughout the seasons. Other factors such as
anthropogenic disturbance and negative interspecific relationships as demonstrated by the
magpie, may also account for this initial reluctance.
43
Chapter 5
Spring and summer food preferences of the
Australasian harrier in vineyards
5.1 Abstract
The Australasian harrier is a generalist feeder whose diet includes animal carcasses as well as
live prey, such as birds, mammals, fish, frogs, and invertebrates. In order to attract harriers
into vineyards to help control pest passerine bird populations it is important to provide
supplementary food that provides maximum attraction qualities. This includes providing food
that reflects the choice of the harrier in the wild. Anecdotal evidence has identified that during
the spring breeding season the harrier prefers nestlings or chicks to other foods such as rabbit.
A two-choice test was performed using pieces of rabbit and day-old dead cock chicks placed
on elevated feeding tables in vineyards during the spring and summer seasons. Chicks (86%)
were preferred over rabbit (14%) during the spring season and there was no significant
preferential choice between chicks over rabbit in the summer season. Reasons for this
seasonal behaviour are discussed.
5.2 Introduction
Dietary intake and prey choice amongst raptor populations are seasonably variable. This
variation may be related to a number of factors, such as prey availability or density, where
prey switching from a favoured food source to a less favoured one may be a necessity when
typical prey species numbers diminish (Tome, 1994). Access to prey may be impeded by
environmental factors (Korpimȁki, 1985), or nutritional driving factors may result in diet
variability. Several studies have shown that even in specialist raptor species nutritional intake
is dominated by seasonal availability (Newton, 1979; Robertson, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981;
Aumann, 1988; Goutner & Alivizatos, 2003; Rojas et al., 2005; Kafkaletou-Diez et al., 2008;
Seaton et al., 2008; González-Acuña et al., 2009).
Some raptor species display a seasonal difference in prey choices during the breeding period.
They may choose small or medium mammals during courtship and egg laying, possibly
because the net energy gain is higher when hunting for small mammals compared to birds
44
(Simmons, 2000). Lewis et al. (2006) found that the proportion of juvenile prey, i.e. nestlings,
increased in the diet of Northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) as the nesting season
advanced, probably related to juvenile prey emergence in the environment and ease of their
predation.
The female Australasian harrier generally does not return to the breeding territory until
June/August when courtship begins and may continue until October. Nest building begins in
September to October (Heather & Robertson, 1996). From September to November, the
female lays 2-7 eggs and she incubates the eggs for approximately 30 days. The male feeds
the female throughout this time until the fledging of the harrier chicks. Chicks fledge at 43-46
days old and will remain with their parent for approximately one week after fledging (Baker-
Gabb, 1978; Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Heather & Robertson, 1996).
The carnivorous diet of the Australasian harrier is varied. In New Zealand, a large proportion
of the diet includes animal carcasses, from road-kill (Marchant & Higgins, 1993). Hare
(Lepus europeus) and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) have been noted to be the harriers’
favoured food (Robertson, 1980; Baker- Gabb, 1981; Wong, 2002), along with small
introduced passerine birds and domestic hen chicks (Gallus domesticus), remaining
seasonally important (Robertson, 1980).
An anecdotal report (Beard, R., pers. comm., 2009) suggested that in a New Zealand vineyard
where feeding stations had been established in an attempt to mitigate grape damage caused by
passerine bird species, harriers preferred foraging on domestic chicks during the breeding
period. Harriers that had established a regular feeding pattern from an elevated feeding table
baited with lagomorphs during the winter season, showed a reduced interest in taking
hare/rabbit from the table as the spring season (September/October) commenced. Dead day-
old cock chicks replaced the hare/rabbit bait and regular visits to the tables resumed. A study
by Robertson (1980), examined the food choices of the Australasian harrier by offering a
choice of baits. Results showed that domestic hen chicks and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus)
were favoured over rabbits, possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and eels (Anguilla australis) at
the time of the study; however, Robertson did not investigate seasonal choices.
A better understanding of seasonally preferential food sources of the harrier and provision of
that seasonal preference when attracting them to feeding tables in vineyards may be required
45
to achieve increased Australasian harrier numbers in the vineyard. The aim of this study is to
establish whether the harrier prefers certain prey types (rabbit or chicks) during the breeding
(spring) and non-breeding (summer) season.
5.3 Methods
The study site was located at Bentwood vineyard, in Tai Tapu, Canterbury (see chapter 1).
The feeding table (see chapter 4) was placed in the headland (i.e. at the end of the vine rows),
of the vineyard close to a strainer post so that it could be cable-tied to the post to provide
stability. Bird damage appears to be prevalent at the outer vines or edge of the vineyard and
decreases towards the interior of the vineyard (Saxton, 2008). The choice of this feeding
location was to maximise protection for ripening grapes in the ensuing seasons.
Hare or rabbit carcasses, both favoured food choices (Fennell, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981;
Wong, 2002), opened to expose flesh (Robertson, 1980; Knight & Anderson, 1990), were
placed on the ground. Bait was replaced every two-three days depending on rate of
decomposition. When habituation had taken place the hare/rabbit bait was placed on the
feeding table; the table was then attached to the pole and raised gradually to grapevine canopy
height (see chapter 4).
At the time of this trial’s commencement, regular bait supplies were being placed on the
feeding table. Approximately three individual harriers, identified via a time-lapse video
camera, visited the feeding table at this time, but visits were only intermittent (approximately
50% of the days per month). The only bait supplied at this stage was dead hare or rabbit.
Skinned rabbit pieces, obtained from a pet food company and day-old dead chicks obtained
from a poultry-processing factory were then used to assess harrier food choice in the vineyard
at breeding time (October-January). To eliminate any effect of mass and size, rabbit pieces
were equivalent to chicks (approx. 50 g). Seven pieces of skinned rabbit meat and seven dead
one day-old cock chicks were placed on the feeding table at canopy height. This random
arrangement resulted in pieces of rabbit and chicks being available at the edge of the table as
well as the centre of the table (Fig. 5.1).
46
Figure 5.1: Diagram showing example of placement of food items on feeding table
(yellow = chicks, red = rabbit pieces). As items were taken by harriers they were
replaced i.e. rabbit for rabbit, chick for chick.
The spring period for this trial was one month (30 observations, mid October to mid
November 2009). Bait items were observed daily, usually mid afternoon, and number of
rabbit pieces/chicks taken was recorded, and any missing items were replaced with the same
item that was taken i.e. rabbit for rabbit and chick for chick. Where items were not taken, they
were replaced every two days to maintain freshness of the bait. The same procedure was
repeated for the later breeding period in the summer (30 observations, late December to late
January 2009/2010).
The data were analysed using a paired t-test where test statistic was the proportion of pieces
taken per day for each bait type out of the total available. The test was run using Microsoft
Excel® version 2007.
5.4 Results
Harrier visits to the vineyard were intermittent at the beginning of this trial. With the addition
of the chicks, the harrier visits showed an increased feeding pattern from approximately 50%
of days up to 100% during the spring trial period (Table 5.1).
47
Table 5.1: Time taken for feeding establishment from feeding table, at Bentwood
Vineyard, Tai Tapu, Canterbury, 2009. N= number of days per month bait was taken.
% = percentage of bait uptake per month. With the addition of chicks in October
harrier visits increased from approx. 50 % to 100%.
Month Days N %
August 19 14 73.7%
September 30 5 16.7%
October 31 15 48.4%
November 30 30 100%
December 31 31 100%
As the visits became more regular, the choice of food indicated a significant preferential bias
in the spring period (t = 9.52; df = 20; p<0.001), with 85.7% of the chicks taken compared
with 14.3% of the rabbit pieces (Fig 5.2).
Figure 5.2: Mean (+ SEM) percentage of chicks and rabbit taken by Australasian
harriers from a raised feeding table in spring (mid-October to mid-November) 2009.
During the summer breeding period, there was no significant difference with 100% of the
chicks taken and 98.6% of the rabbit pieces taken (t = 1.02; df = 20; p = 0.34, Fig. 5.3).
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chicks Rabbit
me
an %
bai
t ta
ken
48
Figure 5.3: Mean (+ SEM) percentage of chicks and rabbit taken by Australasian
harriers from a raised feeding table in summer (late-December to late-January)
2009/2010.
5.5 Discussion
Chicks were preferred over pieces of rabbit meat during the spring trial period but there was
no significant food choice difference between rabbit and chicks over the summer trial period.
The seasonal diet of the Australasian harrier is changeable. Both winter and summer can
become a time of food scarcity for many harriers and, as the spring season approaches, food
supplies became more abundant (Simmons, 2000). Mammalian animal carcasses are an
important part of the harrier’s diet during winter and early spring (Baker-Gabb, 1978). Baker-
Gabb (1978, 1981) reported that in spring and summer, Australasian harriers rely on eggs and
nestlings as a food source. Spring preference for eggs and nestlings may be because these
prey items are easy to transport to nest sites or possibly other factors as discussed below.
5.5.1 Nutritional requirements
Newton (1979) suggested that quality of food may be just as an important as quantity and that
the nutritive values of some prey species may differ. In optimal foraging theory a predator’s
diet should include a food resource that provides the highest net energy gain, maximizing
lasting energy input, or reducing starvation and/or predation risks (Preston, 1990; Beissinger
et al., 1994). Beissinger et al. (1994) expanded on this by noting that when a predator is
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
Chicks Rabbit
me
an %
bai
t ta
ken
49
choosing a potential prey item, it is dependent upon the predator’s physiological state, energy
cost to obtain the prey, predator avoidance and energy/nutritional benefits of the prey.
While retrieving prey items from the feeding table, little energy cost was required of the
harrier, as the prey were immobile and therefore, easily accessed. The fear of perceived
predators, such as human presence, (which was frequent at this site) was not deemed
important or overcome, as prey was being taken, initially intermittently, but then regularly
from the table. This regularity of feeding is also likely to be related to the habituation process
where a harrier became accustomed to taking food from the table. In the light of the
Beissinger et al. (1994) study, prey choice may be driven by instinctive driving factors that
recognise the energy/nutritional benefits of the chicks, which in turn became the catalyst in
the uptake of chicks over rabbits in the spring.
The female harrier requires greater amounts of protein immediately prior to egg formation,
relative to other lifetime periods (Simmons, 2000; Durant et al., 2000). Protein levels were
found to be higher in day-old chicks than mammalian species, such as rats and mice (Forbes
& Flint, 2000) although rabbits were not studied. Tollan (1988), examined the energy
requirement for maintenance, including energy assimilation efficiency, in the Australasian
harrier on three different prey items; laboratory mice (Mus spp.), day-old chicks and fish
(Gobiomorphus cotidianus.). Day-old chicks had the highest protein levels but metabolisable
energy came second to the rat, and harrier energy assimilation efficiency was lowest when fed
chicks. The higher protein levels in the chicks may help to explain why the harriers in this
trial preferred chicks to rabbits in the spring months. Although energy assimilation efficiency
was lowest when fed chicks in Tollan’s study it could be suggested that the nesting harrier
does not require vast amounts of energy when sitting on eggs.
5.5.2 Neophobia and food choice
It was expected that the chicks’ appearance or general morphology on the table was clearly
recognisable as a prey item to the harrier, more so than the equally sized rabbit pieces. This
may account for the earlier uptake of chicks over rabbits in the spring. The rabbit pieces may
have been unrecognisable, (although they do take animal carcasses from roadways) as a food
choice compared to the chick, and neophobic tendencies (see chapter 4), may account for its
reluctance to take the rabbit. However, if this were the case it could be presumed that after
regular chick uptake, i.e. by the end of the spring 30-day trial, there may have been some
switch to rabbit meat as the harrier had time to identify the rabbit meat as an easily accessible
50
“safe” food source. By the end of the 30-day spring trial, chicks remained significantly higher
in terms of uptake, than rabbit.
5.5.3 Search image and prey seasonal abundance
Another reason for the preferential selection of chicks in spring may be related to a specific
search image (Tinbergen, 1960) that the harrier has for chicks at this time of year. Diet
specificity is a consequence of seasonal variation in prey availability (Newton, 1979;
Robertson, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981; Aumann, 1988; Goutner & Alivizatos, 2003; Rojas et
al., 2005; Kafkaletou-Diez et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2008; González-Acuña et al., 2009), and
this availability (e.g. nestlings or chicks) may reinforce the harrier’s search image at this time.
Seasonal prey availability is a factor in food choice for raptors. Rojas et al. (2005), found that
falcons (Falco femoralis) consumed more (in terms of numbers and biomass), passerine birds
than rodents in the spring and summer, and that this was probably related to seasonal
abundance of species. Aumann (1988) found that the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus)
preyed on rabbits more in spring when they were in greatest abundance and birds were mostly
taken in summer when they were in greatest abundance. When the Northern harrier’s (Circus
cyaneus) own eggs begin to hatch, they switch to the new season nestling passerines, as they
became increasingly available (Simmons, 2000), and in New Zealand, nestlings increase in
the landscape during the spring months and are an important part of the Australasian harrier’s
diet (Baker-Gabb, 1981; Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Wong, 2002).
Tinbergen’s (1960), concept of “search image” describes how insectivorous birds had learned
to look for only one type of prey. Several studies have addressed this concept for selection of
prey choice related to prey searching, but do not appear to factor in seasonal characteristics
(Mueller, 1977; Pietrewicz & Kamil, 1979; Bond & Kamil, 1999; Blough, 2001; Giovanni &
Bird, 2011). This concept was underlined by Robertson’s (1980) study on the Australasian
harrier and its selection of carrion. Robertson found that an individual harrier presented with a
choice of prey types chose domestic chicks considerably more than rats. His suggestion was
that the harrier was searching for this prey type (chicks). Robertson’s (1980) study did not
indicate which season of the year he carried out his field studies, so it would be difficult to
make any assumptions on seasonal preference.
The specific preference or specific search image could be related to this trial as chicks were
selected over pieces of similar-sized rabbit meat. However, the search image factor (i.e. the
51
chick) may have attracted the harriers to the table, but if they landed on the table, they would
still be confronted with two choices; rabbit or chick. During this experiment, video camera
footage showed harriers flying swiftly over the table grasping at food items and carrying the
item away without lingering at the table.
It could be assumed that for the Australasian harriers in this trial chicks/nestlings are an
abundant recognisable prey item in the harriers’ spring natural environment and the seasonal
search image for this item is possible. The rabbit meat in this trial was presented in no
recognisable form that is reflected in a harriers’ natural environment, so that may account for
chick over rabbit choice. However, harriers often consume animal carcasses obtained from
vehicular road-kill (Marchant & Higgins, 1993), and although the victims’ morphology is not
often unrecognisable, depending on the damage that the vehicle has caused to the body of the
animal, rabbit pieces may look similar to a much-damaged carcass. The repeated encounters
the harrier has with chicks in the springtime in a non-manipulated environment may activate
the search image for harriers in this season and not the summer season.
5.6 Conclusion
Chicks were introduced to the feeding table in October as part of the rabbit/chick prey
preference trial where visits to the table were intermittent. With the addition of chicks to the
feeding table feeding visits became regular in the following month, November. The selection
for chicks over rabbit in the spring seasons and the relatively equal prey choice over the
summer season has been identified in this trial. Factors such as inherent need for foods with
differing nutritional benefits for the breeding period may be an indicator, however a much
more in depth enquiry into this would have to be initiated to substantiate this claim.
Alternatively, it could be that the rabbit pieces due to their presentation and morphology were
a novel object and neophobic behaviour prevented the harrier from taking the rabbit bait
earlier in the spring season and this took some time to overcome. Seasonal prey abundance
where the harrier chooses the chicks in the spring as a reflection of the environmental
availability could reinforce the search image concept. A behavioural characteristic of many
avian species reflected in preferential prey items, it might also have had a part to play in food
choice of chicks over rabbit.
52
These findings may provide a guideline for attracting harriers to vineyards, as it has shown
harrier preferential food choice dependent on season. Food that is put out to attract harriers in
the spring (i.e. chicks) may be an important factor in establishing a regular feeding
programme for harriers in vineyards, while for other seasons it may not be of importance
which food is used.
53
Chapter 6
Australasian harrier presence and passerine bird
abundance in vineyards
6.1 Abstract
Raised feeding tables where supplementary food was provided were set up in Martinborough
vineyards prior to grape harvest to attract Australasian harriers, in attempt to decrease pest
passerine bird species that forage on ripening grapes. A previous study had identified that
harriers were visiting some vineyards intermittently and others regularly. Pest passerine bird
abundance was significantly less in vineyards that had feeding tables present on average by
56%. Birds did not appear perturbed by the tables themselves, as there was no significant
effect of table presence and distance that birds were observed from it. It is likely that
increased harrier presence and activity induced by the tables’ presence may have had an effect
on the wider vineyard area. Passerine birds were observed flying in all sites with and without
tables, rather than having net contact or within the nets. Starlings were the most common
species found in the vineyards and blackbird abundance was influenced the most by the
presence of feeding tables.
6.2 Introduction
The scaring ability of predator species can reduce population densities of pest species, and
this ability has been exploited since ancient times (Conover, 1979; Erickson et al., 1990).
Several studies have suggested harriers (Circus spp.), have been responsible for limiting
game-bird populations (Redpath et al., 2001; Amar & Redpath, 2002; Baines et al., 2008),
while population densities of mammalian pest species have shown a decrease in the presence
of other avian predators (Mũnoz & Murúa, 1990; Kay et al., 1994). Humans have exploited
this natural form of biological control, where birds of prey (raptors), such as falcons (Falco
spp.), and hawks (Buteo and Accipiter spp.), have been utilised as biological control agents
for pest bird species in agricultural and non-agricultural settings (Erickson et al., 1990;
Duckett, 1991; Alley, 2003; Daugovish et al., 2006; Saxton, 2010; Kross et al., 2011).
54
In the wine-growing industry, there is an ongoing and pressing need to find an effective and
longer-lasting scaring mechanism that has the capacity to impact grape-foraging passerine
bird numbers that contribute to significant economic loss. Bird-scaring methods in vineyards
have previously been employed, such as hawk-kites, raptor models, eye-spot balloons and gas
guns, but these devices rapidly lose effectiveness as pest birds become accustomed to them
(Hickling, 1995; Daugovish et al., 2006; Tracey et al., 2007).
Predator presence is important in the community ecology structure of a species, even when
the predator may only cause low mortality rates on a particular prey species (Cresswell, 2008;
Cresswell, 2011). Despite the lack of real danger for many individuals, there remains an
inherent fear response to all raptors in passerine birds (Conover, 1979; Hothem & De Haven,
1982; Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et al., 2006).
Fear of predation that a predator instils can have an indirect effect on a prey species
population. For example, fear of predation may limit areas in which prey choose to forage
(Whittingham & Evans, 2004). The passerine bird, when foraging, has to evaluate its trade-off
options; whether to gain required energy from an abundant food source, in this case a ripe
grape, by foraging in an area where a known predator frequents, or avoid the area and exhaust
more energy reserves to locate safer food sources. Abrams (1984) reported that for foragers,
mean energy intake is affected by the quantity of food available and predator presence. The
risk is also amplified by the length of foraging that may take place in an abundant food source
area. Although more food provides greater fitness, it increases mortality rate risk, as the
longer the period of foraging facilitates a greater vulnerability to predation (Abrams, 1984).
Behavioural adaptation to minimise the risk of predation may have a great significance for
populations, communities and ecosystems and such adaptations may include an alteration in
habitat use along with foraging behaviour (Lima, 1998; Cresswell, 2008; Dunn et al., 2010).
Decision making by prey as to where and when to forage may be affected by the presence of
predators (Howe, 1979; Valone & Lima, 1987; Thomson et al., 2006; Dunn et al., 2010). For
example, small birds may forage nearer vegetative cover to avoid predation (Lima, 1990).
Behaviour exhibited in response to aerial predator presence includes fleeing to cover after
both conspecific and interspecific alarm calls are signaled (Göth, 2001; Magrath et al., 2007)
and flocking behaviour, which is displayed by species such as starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)
(Devereux et al., 2008; Carere et al., 2009). Furthermore, passerine bird species densities are
55
often lower in raptor nesting habitat (Norrdahl & Korpimäki, 1998) and birds will often
abandon locations where a high risk of predation is possible (Lima & Valone, 1991).
Unlike the endemic New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae), another diurnal raptor
which actively pursues birds on the wing (Heather & Robertson, 1996), the Australasian
harrier (Circus approximans) is more commonly a carrion or animal carcass feeder, including
road-kill. It will take small mammals and birds, but rarely takes birds on the wing (Baker
Gabb, 1978; Robertson, 1980; Marchant & Higgins, 1993). Flocks of birds, both grape
foraging (e.g. starlings) and non-grape foraging (e.g. house sparrows, Passer domesticus), that
inhabit vineyards, flee when the Australasian harrier is observed (pers. obs.), and its presence
may have an impact on passerine bird behaviour, including movement and foraging tactics.
In order to decrease grape damage in vineyards caused by pest passerine birds it is important
to decrease their populations, or at least inhibit them from foraging on the grapes. At the time
of this study, harriers had been observed feeding off raised tables where bait had been
provided (see chapter 4). It is assumed that the table’s presence with the harrier feeding off it
(albeit intermittently) might have a Pavlovian effect (Griffin et al., 2000), where the table’s
presence for the passerine bird species signals a threat and avoidance behaviours are
exhibited. It was predicted that the increased predatory presence of the Australasian harrier,
regularly or intermittently, feeding off the table, would reduce populations of pest birds in
vineyards, or at least disturb the birds and therefore diminish foraging time on grapes.
6.3 Methods
The experiment was conducted at seven Martinborough, Wairarapa, vineyard sites. Five-
minute bird counts were completed during February and March 2011 just prior to grape
harvest. All sites where bird counts took place grew Pinot Noir grape cultivars. Vineyards
were located adjacent to shelter tree lines where pest birds perch and may nest. As this was
the grape-ripening period, all vines were netted using single or multi-row type netting. All
tables and subsequent bird count sites were located in the headland of the vineyard within 6 m
of the edge of the vines. Edge vines are the most vulnerable to bird attack and generally
sustain more damage (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Saxton, 2004). This measurement allowed
for a uniform placement of tables from the vines, as some placement of tables were dictated
by vineyard management and were required to be cable-tied to the fence line.
56
Four sites with harrier feeding tables had been erected approximately five months before this
study, and were baited with several different types of bait depending on availability. Bait was
wired down on the table to prevent the harrier from dragging the bait off and onto the ground.
Bait included harrier-favoured foods (Robertson, 1980; Baker-Gabb, 1981); hare (Lepus
europeus), rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), day-old cock chicks (Gallus domesticus), and, the
occasional brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). The tables stood at grapevine canopy
height (approx. 2.0 m), so that pest passerine bird species could see any harrier that may be
feeding off the table. The other three sites did not have feeding tables erected, although a
central point for a notional table was nominated and acted as the non-treatment control.
6.3.1 Five-minute bird counts
A modified version of the five-minute bird count method (Dawson & Bull, 1975) was used to
assess bird activity from fixed monitoring points. As Dawson & Bull, (1975) suggest, the
observer stands at a count station and records the number and species of all birds seen and
heard. In this study as the sites were relatively small and binocular magnification could
identify bird species, all identification was done by visualisation rather than auditory
identification.
The five-minute bird counts at each vineyard consisted of an 80 m radius half circle. This area
was chosen to make all the monitoring areas consistent, as the smallest vineyard width of
rows measured 80 m. The feeding table/notional tables were located at the front-centre of the
half circle area in the headland of each vineyard. Within this 80 m site the vineyard was
divided into 4 x 20 m sections or count areas, 0-20 m, 20-40 m, 40-60 m, 60-80 m distance
from the table, forming a semi-circular arrangement (Fig. 6.1). These areas were marked by
different coloured pegs (for each of the four distances, to help with easy visualisation), placed
on top of the vine pole and netting as inconspicuously as possible, but still visible when using
binocular magnification. The count point was at least (depending on vineyard vegetation to
provide cover for the observer) 6 m from the table/notional table in the vineyard. .
57
Figure 6.1: Vineyard plot showing counting distances from feeding table/notional table
sites (0-20 m, 20-40 m, 40-60 m, 60-80 m) for five-minute bird counts with observer point
located in vineyard vegetation/shelterbelt.
Ten counts on ten mornings were performed at each vineyard (n=7, 70 counts) between
0730- 0930 hours (to allow for travel between vineyards). Time of count starts were varied to
allow for possible differences in bird activity related to time of day (0730-0930) at different
vineyards i.e. if vineyard one was started first, it was started second on the next day’s count,
in an orderly sequence which ensured that all vineyards were counted at different times
throughout the 0730-0930 hours period. Counting was done in a covert location, allowing for
differing landscape characteristics in each vineyard, but still allowing for identification of bird
species using binocular magnification. Number and type of pest passerine birds, distance from
the table/notional table, and activity type (i.e. flying in the area, contact with the net, or caught
within the net) were recorded for a five minute period. At the end of each count, observations
for birds caught within the net, or foraging on the ground, which may have not been detected
from the count point, were made by walking through the study area.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
40m
20m
60m
80m
X Observer
X Feeding Table
58
Count data was typically non-normal in its distribution. Accordingly, the effect of the table
(presence-absence), abundance, species, and the distance from the table (m) were analysed
using a generalised linear model with a poisson error distribution and a log-link function. The
tests were run using the GenStat statistical package (Version 13).
6.4 Results
6.4.1 Abundance
Pest passerine bird abundance was less in vineyards with tables present (μ=12.75) compared
with tables absent (μ=39). Three out of the four vineyards sites with harrier feeding tables
present had a much lower number of pest passerine birds than those without, with Burnt Spur
and Craggy Range showing very few birds present (Table 6.1). Overall mean pest passerine
bird numbers where a feeding table was present were found to be significantly less than where
the feeding table was absent (X2=4,345, df=1, p=0.04 see: Fig 6.2 ).
Table 6.1: Total number of pest passerine birds present in vineyards (per 5 minute bird
count), with and without feeding tables.
Vineyard No. Counts Number Birds
Tab
le p
rese
nt Cirrus 10 32
Burnt Spur 10 4
Craggy Range 10 3
Pond Paddock 10 12
Total 40 51 (μ=12.75)
Tab
le a
bse
nt Waiora 10 18
Martin's Rd 10 53
Te Rehua 10 46
Total 30 117 (μ=39)
59
Figure 6.2 Mean number of pest passerine birds (± SEM) in Martinborough vineyards
with Australasian harrier feeding tables absent and present.
6.4.2 Distance from table/notional table site
Whilst the presence of the feeding table influenced the overall mean bird counts, the distance
(0-20,20-40,40-60,60-80 m) pest birds were sighted from the table/notional table site was not
significant (X2=8.188, df=3; p= 0.69), with birds observed at all distances even when the
table was present (Fig. 6.3).
Figure 6.3: Mean number (± SEM) of pest passerine birds and distance from the feeding
table/notional table site in vineyards.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Table Absent Table Present
Me
an #
of
bir
ds
60
6.4.3 Bird Behaviour:
Most birds were observed flying in the bird count area with tables present (n=39, 76%) and
tables absent (n = 99, 85%). Smaller numbers of birds were observed having net contact with
tables present (n= 6, 12%) and tables absent (n= 18, 15%). No birds (n =0, 0%) were observed
within the nets where tables were absent, where tables were present (n = 6, 12 %) a small
number was observed (X2= 14.38, df= 2; p<0.001) (Table 6.2). No birds were observed
foraging on the ground.
Table 6.2: Numbers of pest passerine birds flying, in net contact, or within the net, with
and without feeding table present.
Behaviour
Flying Net Contact Within Net
Table N % N % N % Total Bird Numbers
Present 39 76% 6 12% 6 12% 51
Absent 99 85% 18 15% 0 0% 117
6.4.4 Species
Species of birds were counted and starlings and blackbirds (Turdus merula) were the most
abundant species found (Fig. 6.4). Starlings were more abundant than blackbirds in vineyards
both with tables (n=34) and without tables (n=81). The presence of a table appeared to have
the biggest effect for blackbirds with their numbers decreasing by 82% compared to only 58%
for starlings. Tables did not appear to affect the numbers of song thrushes (Turdus philemon)
and silver eyes (Zosterops lateralis), but the numbers were too low for any robust analysis for
the interaction between species and table.
61
Figure 6.4: Mean number (± SEM) of pest passerine bird species (BB= blackbird, S=
starling, SE= silvereye, ST= song thrush) found in vineyards with Australasian harrier
feeding tables absent and present.
6.5 Discussion
6.5.1 Abundance of pest passerine birds and harrier presence
At the vineyards where the feeding tables were present, mean recorded pest passerine bird
numbers were lower. The decrease could be because the incumbent bird populations were
deterred from foraging in the vineyard, as there were increased harrier activity/numbers due to
bait-laden tables.
The predator-prey interaction is clearly displayed in the relationship between raptors and
passerine birds where the presence of a raptor will invoke shelter-seeking behaviour and
abandonment of the foraging area (Daugovish et al., 2006). Lima & Valone (1991) found that
predators were responsible for affecting communities of grassland birds, where birds would
not inhabit areas where there was high predatory risk. Results are in concurrence with the
findings that passerine birds that perceive an increased risk from predators may alter habitat
use, including foraging behaviour, which affects the length of foraging time and volume of
food taken, and subsequent flow on effects for reproductive success and future population
dynamics (Howe, 1979; Dunn et al., 2010).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BB S SE ST
Me
an #
of
bir
ds
Bird Species
Table Absent
Table Present
62
Harriers were occasionally seen flying in and around the vineyard in five of the seven
vineyards during the five-minute bird count observation period. After a harrier feeding trial
had been commenced (see chapter 4), of the four vineyards with tables present, bait was
intermittently taken and one table, bait was consumed regularly. However, no harriers wekre
observed feeding on the tables and the possible reasons for this sporadic behaviour are
outlined in chapter 4.
Although harriers were not regularly feeding in three out of four vineyards, the baited tables
probably attracted them to the vineyards inducing inquisitiveness to the tables, which
produced a repeated and importantly lingering presence in the vineyards, enhancing the fear
response behaviours of the pest birds. If, harriers were even only intermittently exploring the
vineyard and the table with the bait presented on it, it was possibly enough to deter some
more predator-wary birds, or perhaps other predatory species may have been accessing bait
from the tables affecting overall passerine bird abundance. Other predatory species had been
sighted within and around the vineyards, including magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen), cats (Felis
catus), and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and the effect of these is discussed in chapter 8.
6.5.2 Distance from the feeding table and harrier presence
Although results have shown that mean and total pest bird numbers were lower, there was no
significant difference based on the distance of bird activity to the tables. The passerine bird
species in this study that were present did not appear to be perturbed by the table itself, as
they did not avoid it. Furthermore, there were more birds observed around the table and the
central location than expected, given that the area around the table (0-20 m) only occupies
approximately 6 % of the total area under observation. This observation could be illustrative
of how birds prefer the edges of vineyards (see Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Saxton, 2004).
Saxton (2010) found that falcons fed supplementary food off feeding trays could provide
protection for some grape varieties up to 4 ha. In this study, it is likely the effect of the
harriers’ presence (even intermittently) in and around the vineyard, because of the provision
of food on the tables, probably extended well beyond the 80 m distance, to the greater
vineyard area.
63
6.5.3 Passerine bird behaviour and harrier presence
While it would be optimum in an economic sense for pest passerine species to be eliminated
from the vineyard, a reduction in pest bird numbers brought about by increased harrier
density/activity that resulted in lower levels of grape damage would be of benefit. However,
lower numbers may not necessarily be the only solution; behavioural modification of the
passerine bird may also bring about a decrease in grape damage. Anecdotal reports (Beard, R.,
viticulturalist, pers. comm., July, 2009) suggested that with harriers present in the vineyard,
pest birds were continually on the move, and when they are on the move, they do not have the
opportunity to forage on the grapes. Lima & Valone (1991) support this, noting when birds
perceive a high predation risk they will not settle. Results showed that most of the birds in the
vineyard 5minute bird counts were flying rather than settled on, or within, the vines in both
the table and control sites. Flying behaviour was reasonably similar in both treatment and
control sites. Accordingly, no conclusions can be made with regard to the effects on bird
behaviour of the presence or absence of feeding tables.
6.5.4 Species type and harrier presence
Different bird species are reported to perceive risk differently, which results in differing
behavioural responses, including feeding and anti-predator escape behaviour (Valone & Lima,
1987; Lima & Valone, 1991; Tracey et al., 2007). Tracey et al. (2007) noted that there are
different ecological behaviours between species and the severity of damage they cause to
grapes in vineyards differs (see chapter 2). In this study, starlings represented the greatest
abundance in both treatment vineyards and controls. The presence of a table appeared to have
the largest effect on blackbirds with their numbers decreasing by 82% in vineyards where
harriers were taking bait from feeding tables, compared to only 58% for starlings. There is an
important biological difference between the two species. Starlings forage in flocks, presumed
an anti-predator behaviour (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Carere, 2009), while blackbirds (who
were overall less abundant at all sites) are a solitary species, foraging on the ground and are
more likely to stay in one area as they are territorial (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Watkins,
1999). Interestingly, blackbirds in this study were not observed foraging on the ground,
however this could have been related to poor visibility due to vineyard foliage.
An assumption could be made that blackbirds may perceive the risk of predation as greater,
due to harrier presence, and will abandon a profitable foraging site more readily than the
starling. Alternatively, blackbirds may be able to find alternative food sources that meet their
64
nutritional requirements, so the trade off for safety over food is greater. The blackbirds’
predominant food choice is earthworms (Oligochaeta), followed by other invertebrates, and
supplemented by fruit in autumn (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Hampe, 2001; Chamberlain et
al., 2007; Tracey et al., 2007). Starlings are voracious feeders and once they have established
a feeding area are difficult to relocate (Flaherty, 1992; Tracey & Saunders, 2003). They are
found in large numbers and the nutritional need induced by intraspecific competition may
outweigh perceived predation risk. As count numbers were low, particularly song thrush and
silvereye numbers, it is difficult to generalise with regard to the wider population of these
species, however it represents value as a preliminary analysis.
6.6 Conclusion
While mean pest passerine bird densities were lower where bait-laden tables were present, it
is difficult to come to any definite conclusions as to why this may be. As harriers, apart from
one site out of four, were only taking bait intermittently, it may be also difficult to assume
that harriers are the sole reason for this (see chapter 8). While abundance of passerine birds
was less in vineyards with feeding tables, than those without, the tables themselves (in four
vineyards) did not appear to deter bird presence as there was no significant effects on bird
presence and distance from the table. This finding may simply suggest that increased harrier
presence (perhaps combined with other predatory species) in the treatment vineyards and the
surrounding landscape, albeit intermittently, may have been the reason. Further bird counts
and closer surveillance of all consumers accessing the feeding tables before and during
subsequent grape ripening seasons would be worthwhile.
65
Chapter 7
Supplementary feeding of the Australasian harrier and
the impact on grape damage in vineyards
7.1 Abstract
Vineyards around the world sustain significant economic losses due to grape loss and damage
caused by frugivorous passerine birds. Attracting birds of prey into vineyards is a possible
tool in integrated pest management of pest bird species. In 2010, a preliminary grape damage
assessment was completed in Martinborough vineyards to ascertain levels of bird-induced
grape damage sustained in the area. Grape damage sustained in all vineyards surveyed, ranged
between 20 and 30 %. In 2011, a further grape damage assessment was completed after baited
feeding tables had been erected five months prior in vineyards, to attract the Australasian
harrier to help mitigate grape damage caused by passerine birds. While harriers were visiting
some tables intermittently and one regularly, grape damage was lower in the vineyards with
feeding tables present compared to those without. Overall mean damage for sites with tables
was 10.3% compared with 25.3% for sites without feeding tables. Camera data showed
harriers were not the only predator accessing bait from the feeding tables and it is likely that
the suite of predators was responsible for decreased passerine bird abundance and subsequent
lowered levels of grape damage.
7.2 Introduction
With the intensification of cropping practice in New Zealand, many crop pest bird populations
have increased (Saxton, 2004) and the threat to the horticultural industry, including the
viticulture industry, has also increased. Vineyards around the world sustain significant
economic losses due to grape loss and damage caused by frugivorous passerine birds (Plesser
et al., 1983; Somers & Morris, 2002; Berge et al., 2007a; Tracey et al., 2007). Tracey &
Saunders (2003) argued that cost analyses indicated that if bird damage is greater than 40%,
vineyards are not economically viable.
It has been suggested that attracting birds of prey to horticultural settings may provide
economic benefits, including to the wine industry (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Tracey et al.,
66
2007). Consequently, employing the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans), whose
presence may reduce local passerine bird numbers, as a biological control agent in New
Zealand vineyards may be a cost-effective solution to grape damage.
Hawk kites and raptor models have been employed for many years as an attempt to reduce
pest populations in horticultural land (Yim & Kang, 1982; Jarvis, 1985; Dzhabbarov, 1988;
Fleming, 1990; Sinclair, 2002; Taber, 2002; Bomford & Sinclair 2002; Komeda et al., 2005;
Spurr & Coleman, 2005; Berge et al., 2007a; Berge et al., 2007b; Fukuda et al., 2008). These
measures have worked on the assumption that passerine birds have an innate fear of predatory
birds, such as raptors (Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004). However, devices such as
hawk-kites and raptor models rapidly lose effectiveness as pest birds become accustomed to
them (Conover, 1979; Daugovish et al., 2006; Tracey et al., 2007). Other bird scaring
methods, such as eye-spot balloons, while demonstrating a measure of success initially, are
often short-lived as the pest birds begin to habituate to the balloons after one to two weeks
(Hickling, 1995).
Conover (1979) noted that mobile hawk kites rather than stationary ones, which birds
habituated to very quickly, have provided a measure of crop protection. He suggested that
birds might be more afraid of mobile hawk models as they depict a more natural
representation of the predatory behaviour of raptors in the wild, rather than models that were
in a stationary position. Nevertheless, none of these solutions has produced the desired long-
term effect to reduce passerine bird populations and the damage they incur in various
horticultural settings.
Raptors are a possible solution to the important problem of grape-nmjforaging birds in
vineyards. Several studies have highlighted the biological control role of raptors in both
agricultural and non-agricultural settings (Erickson et al., 1990; Redpath et al., 2001;
Daugovish et al., 2006; Baines et al., 2008; Saxton, 2010; Kross et al., 2011). Mitigation of
grape damage using the endemic, and in gradual decline (Holland & McCutcheon, 2007),
New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) has shown positive results. The introduction of
the falcon to Marlborough, New Zealand, vineyards has resulted in a decreased abundance of
pest passerine bird species and an overall reduction in grape damage (Saxton, 2010; Kross et
al., 2011). However, only small numbers of falcons are available for translocation into the
vineyard, and translocation is a complex process.
67
The Australasian harrier is an abundant self-introduced diurnal raptor that has benefited from
the European clearing of native forest for pastureland (Heather & Robertson, 1996). Today,
they frequent pastureland, wetlands and tussock-land where small prey, such as rats, mice,
lizards, invertebrates and nestlings are located. They forage around New Zealand roadways
where animal carcasses from road-kill are readily available (Marchant & Higgins, 1993;
Heather & Robertson, 1996) and considerable numbers of harriers are regularly seen around
New Zealand agricultural land (pers.obs.).
In New Zealand vineyards, the major contributors to grape damage are the introduced
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), European blackbird (Turdus merula) song thrush
(Turdus philomelos) and the self-introduced silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) (Watkins, 1999;
Saxton, 2004). The blackbird, starling, and song thrush take the whole grape while the
silvereye due to its smaller size, pecks the grape. Peck damage is much more widespread and
insidious and can result in quality downgrade of the fruit (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Tracey et
al., 2007). Peck damage can entice the entrance of Hymenopteran insects such as wasps,
honeybees (Fig.7.1) and ants, helping to provide the establishment of bacteria and various
fungi including botrytis (Botrytis cinerea) (Boyce et al., 1999; Tracey & Saunders, 2003;
Saxton, 2004).
Passerine bird attack on grapes in New Zealand vineyards occurs from the véraison (colour-
change) to harvest period, a period of 8-10 weeks (Saxton, 2004). During the véraison to
harvest period, it is assumed the frequency of harriers in the vineyard will be increased due to
an established supplementary feeding programme (see chapter 4). Assessment of pest bird
deterrence from the vineyard is fundamental to this project (see chapter 6). Regardless of the
affect on bird densities, where harriers are supplemented on feeding tables in the vineyard,
identification of decreased levels of grape damage will be the economic measure of its
success. With the increased activity and abundance of harriers in the vineyard study areas
with tables, and the expected decrease in pest passerine bird abundance, it is predicted that
there will be decreased grape damage in vineyards with feeding tables present.
68
Figure 7.1: Peck damaged grape bunch with a honeybee (Apis sp.) feeding on juice.
7.3 Methods
Five vineyard sites in Martinborough, Wairarapa, were selected to a complete a preliminary
assessment of grape damage in 2010, and to confirm that each vineyard had similar levels of
damage warranting the use of these vineyards for future study sites. Vineyards were located in
both peri-urban and rural areas with each vineyard surrounded by a variety of exotic and
native vegetation that act as shelterbelts for the vineyards, but also provide perching and
nesting habitat for pest passerine bird species. All sites grew Pinot Noir grape cultivars, which
suffer moderate-high levels of damage during the grape-ripening to harvest period, even with
netting in place.
Damage assessment was completed immediately before harvest when grapes were at their
ripest and bird pressure is at its greatest. Close liaison with vineyard management regarding
when the grapes were to be harvested was maintained. Grapes were sampled in the week of
the 15th
of March, 2010. All vines had been netted using single or multi-row netting (Fig. 7.
2).
69
For the 2010 grape damage assessment, sampling sites were selected in consultation with
vineyard management; sites with the Pinot Noir grape variety that were subject to
considerable bird pressure in the pre-harvest period. These sites were also selected as sites
where harrier feeding tables could be erected after the 2010 harvest. Vine sampling was
commenced either side of a notional (where tables would be erected later) table site. Because
of the variable size and layout of the vineyards and access to the vines due to various netting
methods, e.g. multi-row or single row, distance of row selection either side of the notional
table site was not always uniform and was independent from other vineyard site
measurements. In an attempt to standardize rows, they were sampled at either side of the
notional feeding table site in equal increments of distance, i.e. 10 m either side of the notional
feeding table site.
Sampling of vines commenced at the edge of each row, moving toward the interior of the
vineyard. Grape damage is not consistent in vineyards, decreasing towards the interior of the
vineyard (Saxton, 2006), whereas vines at the edge of the vineyard are more vulnerable to
Figure 7.2: Grape damage caused by pest passerine birds despite netting. Missing
grapes from the bunch can be seen with exposed pedicels, close to the edge of the
netting.
70
bird attack and sustain more damage due to ease of access and a quick escape route to the
vegetation surrounding the vineyard (Somers & Morris, 2002; Saxton, 2006).
Ten vines were assessed for grape damage from each selected row; 20 rows from each
vineyard resulting in 200 grape bunches and an estimated average of 1000 grapes sampled for
each vineyard, with 1000 bunches sampled in total for all the vineyards. Sampling method
followed the Saxton (2006) methodology. Vineyard, row number and estimated percent
damage were recorded onto a data sheet. Because damage assessment is visual, one bunch
from each of the ten vines that had sustained at least 30-70 % damage was selected for
calibration (Saxton, 2006). This involved bagging each bunch for calibration, labelling with
the corresponding data from the data sheet, and visually estimating damage sustained, which
was then compared with the actual damage when grapes were counted later. At calibration
two types of damage were recorded, missing grapes and pecked grapes, which gave an overall
indication of the avian species that had caused the grape damage.
Grape damage assessment was then repeated in the week of the 28th
of March 2011, using the
same methodology as above. Seven vineyards were surveyed, four with harrier feeding tables
present, where intermittent or regular feeding from the table was occurring (see chapter 4),
and three control sites, without feeding tables. Bushnell Trophy CamTM motion-sensor
cameras (model 119456) were positioned approximately three metres from the feeding tables
which gave an indication of harrier activity. For the control sites, vines were sampled from a
notional table site, i.e. a site that had similar relief to the treatment sites and an area that also
sustained predation pressure as identified by vineyard staff.
Grape damage data was analysed for both seasons using ANOVA (as the data was normally
distributed and had constant variance), calculating SEM for each mean. Where the ANOVA
indicated significant differences, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were undertaken using
Fishers Protected LSD test (α=0.05). All statistical analysis was undertaken using the GenStat
statistical package (Version 13).
7.4 Results
In the 2010 preliminary survey, grape damage to edge vines ranged from 20-30 % (Fig 7.3).
There were significant differences (F4,95=3.97; p < 0.005) in grape damage occurrence
between some vineyards. Te Rehua (30.15 ± 1.9 %), sustained the most damage and was
71
significantly higher than the other four vineyards surveyed. Craggy Range followed (25.5 ±
2.2 %), differing significantly to the three lower vineyards. Burnt Spur (20.39 ± 1.99 %),
Waiora (20.87 ± 2.66 %) and Vynfields (21.17 ± 1.49 %) all had similar levels of damage and
were not significantly different to each other (Fig.7. 3).
Figure 7.3: Mean (+SEM) percentage grape damage in Martinborough vineyards 2010
(without Australasian harrier feeding table present).
Results for the 2011 grape damage survey where feeding tables were present showed
significantly less grape damage in sites that had harrier feeding tables (F1,132=106.45;
p<0.001; Fig 7.4) with an overall mean for sites with tables of 10.33% (±1.1) vs. 25.30% (±
0.95 %) for sites without feeding tables. Pond Paddock sustained the least percent of damage
(3.6 ± 0.60%) compared with Cirrus Estate (23.5 ± 1.72 %) that received the most in the
treatment sites. The other two treatment sites were not significantly different to one another.
One of the control sites, Martins Road (17.2 ± 1.43 %) had significantly less damage than a
site with a table, Cirrus Estate.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Craggy Range Te Rehua Burnt Spur Waiora Vynfields
% G
rap
e D
amag
e
Vineyard
72
Figure 7.4: Mean (+SEM) percentage grape damage with and without Australasian
harrier feeding tables present. Letters above the means indicate significant site
differences using Fishers LSD test (α=0.05).
Camera data showed harrier visits to Pond Paddock vineyard were daily while the other
vineyards recorded either no bait uptake, harriers on the table, or other predators/competitors,
such as magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) and cats (Felis catus), accessing the bait on the table
(Table 7.1). Further discussion on this is in chapter 8.
Table 7.1: Harrier, cat and magpie visits to baited harrier feeding tables in
Martinborough vineyards immediately prior to harvest 2011.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Cirrus Burnt Spur Craggy Range
Pond Paddock
Te Rehua Martins Rd Waiora
% G
rap
e d
amag
e
Vineyard
Table not present
Table present
Date Cat Magpie Harrier Cat Magpie Harrier Cat Magpie Harrier Cat Magpie Harrier
Feb-17 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Feb-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb-23 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Feb-25 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Feb-27 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
Mar-01 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-03 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Mar-05 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-07 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-09 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Mar-11 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-15 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-17 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mar-21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Totals 3 0 5 13 3 4 0 4 2 1 0 26
Burnt Spur Craggy Range Cirrus Estate Pond Paddock
c a a a c d b
d
73
7.5 Discussion
Grape damage caused by pest passerine birds to Pinot Noir grapes in Martinborough was
identified by the preliminary study, and it indicated small but significant differences in
damage amongst different vineyards. This damage highlights the need for a greater level of
protection than just netting and gas guns that is currently used in these vineyards.
The vineyard location that sustained the most damage was small (1.1 ha), situated in a semi-
urban area, surrounded by adjacent vineyards and separated by stands of shelterbelt trees.
Grape damage sustained by birds, is not consistent throughout vineyards (Somers & Morris,
2002; Tracey & Saunders, 2003), varying spatially and temporally within and between
vineyards (Somers & Morris, 2002). This is supported by Saxton (2004) who observed the
interior vines in a vineyard do not generally sustain much damage from bird pressure, but
vines that are at the edge of the vineyard are more vulnerable to bird attack and generally
sustain the most damage. In this case, smaller vineyards, with higher edge to interior area
ratios will suffer greater economic losses than larger ones (Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Saxton,
2004) and what has been observed in the Martinborough vineyards may not be representative
of other vineyards.
Additionally this vineyard area, along with vines, supported several introduced fruiting trees,
peach (Prunus persica), apple (Malus sp.), and plum (Prunus prunus). The presence of these
food resources may have increased the attraction value of the vineyard to pest passerine birds,
and may have encouraged nesting within the vineyard amongst some individuals and
consequently increased populations.
Some bird species, such as the European blackbird, which is found in vineyards throughout
the year, is a serious pest (Heather & Robertson, 1996; Saxton et al., 2004; Tracey et al.,
2007). Blackbirds live within a small territory and an ample and longer period of food supply
provided by the fruiting trees, than grapes alone, may have sustained larger numbers of
blackbirds within the vineyard. Blackbirds were seen in greater numbers in this vineyard
compared to the other four vineyards. The second most significantly damaged vineyard was
large (approx. 40 ha.), rurally-located and the most remote from urban areas out of all
surveyed. It is unclear why different vineyards in this area sustained different levels of
damage; further enquiry may shed some light on this.
74
Daugovish et al. (2006) noted that the presence of falcons (Falco spp.) was a useful integrated
pest management tool related to the protection of strawberries in California, U.S.A. where
they reported significant reduction in fruit damage. A grape damage survey in Marlborough
vineyards in 2009 (Saxton, 2010), and further work by Kross et al. (2011) showed a
significant reduction in grape damage in association with the introduction of the New Zealand
falcon into the vineyards there.
Where Australasian harrier supplementary feeding tables were present in Martinborough
vineyards, the grape damage survey also showed a significant decrease in damage compared
to control vineyard sites without tables. Numbers of passerine birds were reduced when
harrier-feeding tables were present (see chapter 6) which is probably related to the decreased
levels of grape damage found in this study. Kross et al. (2011) also found that with falcon
presence, lower levels of pest passerine bird numbers and decreased grape damage were
correlated.
Harriers were feeding only intermittently from most of the tables in this study. Increased
presence although intermittent, may have been enough to contribute to the decreased grape
damage indicated in the 2011 grape damage survey. Grape-predation reduction is estimated
by at least half when tables were present. Although bait was taken only sporadically, in three
out of the four treatment sites, this does not negate the possible effect of the harrier and its
attraction to the vineyard because of the bait supplied. Interestingly, the vineyard where the
harrier was regularly feeding, indicated by removal of bait, daily observation of harriers on
the table (Barnett, C., winegrower pers. comm., March, 2011), and cameras, showed the least
damage.
The Australasian harrier does not generally take passerine birds on the wing (Baker-Gabb,
1978; Robertson, 1980; Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, its non-lethal predatory
presence may still instil fear in passerine bird species (Conover, 1979; Hothem & De Haven,
1982; Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et al., 2006) and cause
behavioural adaptations used to avoid predators, for example alteration of habitat use and
foraging activities (Lima & Valone, 1991; Lima, 1998; Cresswell, 2008; Dunn et al., 2010).
Birds will forage near vegetative cover to avoid predation (Lima, 1990) and desertion of a
nutritionally beneficial habitat is often a consequence of fear of predation (Lima & Valone,
75
1991; Daugovish et al., 2006), while foraging longevity and food volume taken, are affected
by predatory risk perception (Howe, 1979; Dunn et al., 2010).
Camera data showed that not only the Australasian harrier was taking bait from the feeding
tables. It provided visual verification of cats and magpies also feeding intermittently from the
tables. Grape damage may be reduced because of the additional presence of these predator
species. However, these non-target feeders were not the focus of this study and although they
may well have been instrumental in the significant grape damage decrease where the feeding
tables were present, they may have also confounded the attempts to establish a regular feeding
regime for harriers in vineyards. It is difficult to assume that harriers are bothered by cats due
to a lack of empirical data; however magpies, often in pairs, were seen regularly attacking
harriers (pers. obs.). Kaplan (2004) noted magpies harassing raptors and expelling them from
their territory and they are also reported to attack passerine birds (see chapter 8). Magpies are
seen abundantly in the Martinborough area.
7.6 Conclusion
While there were conflicting anecdotal reports from winegrowers in 2011 with regard to
levels of grape damage sustained that season, results here have shown that the grape damage
was present in both treatment and control sites. Where feeding tables were present, grape
damage was significantly lower, demonstrating a possible correlation between feeding tables
and lowered levels of grape damage. Although this survey had intended to enquire about the
correlation between Australasian harrier presence and grape damage caused by passerine
birds, its initial focus on the harrier has shifted to the feeding table itself. Other predators also
exploited the bait on the table and thus the correlation between decreased grape damage and
harrier presence appears also to be linked to other predators as well as the harrier. Further
inquiry into the presence of all predators found in vineyards and the relationship to lower
levels of passerine birds (see chapter 8) and consequent grape damage may expand on this.
76
Chapter 8
Supplementary feeding and its effects on predator
numbers and pest passerine bird abundance in
vineyards
8.1 Abstract
Supplementary feeding has an effect on community dynamics amongst predator and prey
species and can cause predatory species to migrate to areas where there are plentiful food
resources. With an increased abundance of predators, fear of predation can cause prey species
to abandon areas of abundant food resource, altering their affects (e.g. foraging) on the
surrounding landscape. Passerine birds that forage on ripening grapes prior to the harvest
season may cause serious economic loss to winegrowers. The Australasian harrier had been
fed with supplementary food on feeding tables in vineyards in an attempt to provide
protection for grapes from passerine birds. Where feeding tables were present passerine bird
numbers and grape damage decreased, but it was discovered that not only harriers visited the
tables but also, magpies and cats.
This study examined whether placing bait in the vineyards attracted additional predators. Bait
was placed in vineyards in attempt to attract all predators into the vineyards. Monitoring of all
vineyard sites for predators was completed with and without bait present. Passerine bird
counts were also completed where bait was present and absent. When bait was present,
predator numbers were significantly higher, than when bait was absent and equally, passerine
bird numbers were significantly higher when bait was absent compared to bait present.
Harriers and cats were the most frequently observed predators.
8.2 Introduction
Supplementary feeding can be responsible for the immigration of species into an area,
including patch occupation, resulting in an increase in local abundance (Law, 1995;
Verbeylen et al., 2003). In addition, supplementary feeding of animal carcasses can have an
effect on population dynamics and community structure, however, attracting predators to
habitats in this way often results in predation on other living members of ecosystems
77
(DeVault et al., 2003; Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2009a; Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2009b). Indirect
effects on these species, due to fear of predation, may be reflected in their movements and
spatial responses, including distribution (Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2009b).
The fear of predation was responsible for alterations in communities of Arizonan (U.S.A.)
grassland bird species as reported by Lima & Valone (1991), where birds would not remain in
areas of increased threat of predation. If birds do not perceive a high predation risk they will
remain in an area and consume what is available, however, predation risk may still influence
foraging decisions, e.g., how and what to feed on (Lima, 1985) and where they choose to eat,
sleep and breed (Whittingham & Evans, 2004). Whittingham and Evans (2004) suggested an
increase in actual predation as well as perceived predation risk to birds in agricultural
landscapes was linked to extensive and critical declines in farmland bird communities in
Europe.
Significant economic losses to vineyards are sustained due to loss and damage of grapes
caused by frugivorous passerine birds (Somers & Morris, 2002; Berge et al., 2007; Tracey et
al., 2007). An attempt to mitigate such losses using a proposed biological control agent the
Australasian harrier (Circus approximans), a native, diurnal New Zealand raptor has been
trialed (see chapters 4-7). Found in considerable numbers, the harrier frequents New Zealand
pastoral lands (including vineyards) and roadways, on the lookout for road-kill. Several of
these harriers were attracted into vineyards by providing them with an important food source
– animal carcasses (Baker-Gabb, 1981; Marchant & Higgins, 1993). It was hoped that the
presence of these harriers would exploit the fear of pest passerine birds towards raptors
(Conover, 1979; Göth, 2001; Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Daugovish et al., 2006), and
provide an effective biological control aid by reducing grape damage within the vineyard.
Animal carcasses were supplied in the form of favoured foods (Fennell, 1980; Wong, 2002);
hare (Lepus europeus), rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), chicks (Gallus domesticus), and
brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), on elevated feeding tables in vineyards in
Canterbury and Martinborough, producing mixed results (see chapter 4). Some harriers fed
off the tables intermittently while others used these food resources as a daily feeding routine.
With the addition of motion-sensored camera traps at a later stage in this work it became
evident that bait was not solely being exploited by the target species, the harrier. Other
predators/competitors, such as cats (Felis catus) and magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen), were
78
using this resource. Newey et al. (2009) and Newey et al. (2010) found that many
supplementary feeding studies have made assumptions, which are often untested, that
supplementary feeding is accessed by the target population, which is not always the case, and
this study provides a clear example of this.
Previous studies showed that where harrier-feeding tables were present passerine bird
numbers decreased (see chapter 6), and grape damage was less (see chapter 7). With camera
data confirming that predators other than harriers were accessing the bait from the raised
feeding tables, it was thought useful to examine their contribution to decreased passerine bird
numbers and consequently lowered levels of grape damage. Providing supplementary food so
that all potential predators of passerine birds located near vineyards could easily access the
bait (i.e. carcasses placed on the ground), may attract increased predator numbers into the
vineyards. With increased predatory presence, it is suggested that the combination of these
species would contribute to decreased passerine bird numbers.
8.3 Methods
The experiment was conducted at seven Martinborough, Wairarapa, vineyard sites where
grape damage is sustained at varying levels. Vineyards were located in both peri-urban and
rural areas with each vineyard surrounded by a variety of exotic and native vegetation that
acted as shelterbelts for the vineyards, but also provide perching and nesting habitat for pest
passerine bird species. Four of these sites were locations where supplementary feeding tables
had been sited and where harriers, cats, and magpies were either intermittently feeding, or
regularly feeding. The experiment was undertaken over three months in the winter season
when grapevines are in dormancy and pest passerine birds are not attracted to ripened grapes.
Each site had a period of at least 60 days of no supplementary feeding before the trial began.
Bushnell Trophy CamTM
motion-sensored cameras (model 119456) were set up to observe
what was approaching the bait at the study sites. Three vineyards at a time were surveyed due
to numbers of cameras available. For seven days, the sites situated in the headland of the
vineyard close to the edge of the vines, were monitored with no bait provided; camera data
were downloaded every two days and predator visits were recorded. Five-minute bird counts
(see chapter 6 for methods) were also completed after camera data were downloaded every
two days .The following seven days included addition of bait. Every two days six deceased
79
day-old cock chicks were placed on the ground (no feeding tables were used in this study) so
that all would-be predators would have an opportunity to access the food with ease i.e.,
harrier, magpie, and cat. Numbers of chicks taken was recorded; camera data downloaded
every two days, predator visits recorded and five-minute bird counts were completed.
Chicks were replaced as numbers taken dictated. This process was repeated again in the seven
vineyards in a sequential order resulting in each vineyard being surveyed twice with and
without supplementary food (bait). Total numbers of counts in all vineyards surveyed,
included 56 five-minute bird counts and 56 camera data collection recordings of predators
present in the no bait experiment and 56 five-minute bird counts and 56 camera data
collection recordings of predators present in the bait experiment.
To analyse the data all the predator and bird counts were summed over all visits for each
vineyard and inspected for normality. Given the small sample (n = 7) and the skewed nature
of count data, a comparison between fed and unfed median values was made using Wilcoxon
Matched-Pairs tests (The predator data was then categorised into four different species:
harrier, magpie, cat, and dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Comparisons between the median
numbers of these species observed for each vineyard were conducted using a non-parametric
Kruskal Wallis ANOVA. All data analysis was conducted using GenStat statistical package
(Version 13).
8.4 Results
Predators observed included cats, dogs, magpies, and Australasian harriers. Predators in the
control sites (total count=13) where no bait was provided were significantly less than those
found in treatment sites (total count=376; Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs test; p=0.016). All bait
(day-old cock chicks) was taken within a forty-eight hour period and camera data provided
verification of what predators were present in the vineyards. Median pest passerine bird
densities in the control sites (total count=324) were also significantly higher than the
treatment sites (total count=155; Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs test; p=0.016) (Fig. 8.1). Where
predator numbers increased, pest passerine bird abundance decreased (Fig. 8.2).
80
Figure 8.1: Median number of predators and passerine bird abundance in
Martinborough vineyards with and without supplementary food.
Figure 8.2: Relationship between total predator abundance and total pest passerine bird
abundance showing an exponential regression trend line.
Harrier visits to feeding sites (total count = 260) were the most common, followed by magpies
(68), cats (46) and one dog. The comparisons of the median count for each predator species at
the seven vineyards showed significant differences between species with harriers and cats
most frequently observed (Fig. 8.3) (Kruskal Wallis H=11.28; DF=3; p=0.007).
Unfed Fed
Predators 1 44
Birds 35 13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Me
dia
n #
pre
dat
ors
an
d b
ird
s
R² = 0.3242
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pre
dat
ors
Birds
81
Figure 8.3 Median numbers of different predatory species visiting Martinborough
vineyards.
8.5 Discussion
Predators of pest passerine bird species increased significantly in vineyards where
supplementary food was supplied. Harriers dominated consumption in this study and other
studies have shown that supplementary feeding is linked to increased harrier population
densities (Houston, 1996; Amar & Redpath, 2002; González et al., 2006; Robb et al., 2008).
Robb et al. (2008) suggested that supplementary feeding could be responsible for grand-scale
changes in general bird population dynamics, including migratory behaviour and it may
influence an individual’s range. An earlier study by Houston (1996) reported that feeding
stations not only provided supplementary food, but could also become a reliable resource in
times of low food resources, and were fundamentally important in maintaining birds in the
area of the station.
Supplementary foods increase the density of populations (Boutin, 1990; Knight & Anderson,
1990; Houston, 1996), and habitat occupation is increased by supplementary feeding (Law,
Co
un
ts
Species visiting the vineyards
82
1995; Verbeylen, et al., 2003; Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2009b). Several studies have noted that
where there is provision of supplementary food such as animal carcasses, the presence of
carnivorous predators increases significantly, particularly during times of prey shortage
(DeVault et al., 2003; Wilmers et al., 2003; Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2009b). López-Bao et al.
(2008) found that when supplementary food was provided at feeding stations, individuals
tended to aggregate there.
Australasian harriers were attracted into the vineyards when the chicks were provided as bait
(Fig. 8.3), but so were cats (Fig. 8.4), magpies (Fig. 8.5), and one domestic dog. Generalist
avian and terrestrial predators, such as harriers, cats, and magpies, which exploited the bait in
this study, may not be reliant on the provision of bait for survival means, however providing a
small amount of bait, e.g. six chicks every 48 hours, may have provided adequate attraction to
the site to maintain numbers of predators and even attract new ones into the vineyard. Their
increased presence induced by the supplementary food may have deterred pest birds from
entering or inhabiting the study sites.
Figure 8.4: Australasian harrier accessing bait (day- old cock chick) offered on the
ground in a Martinborough vineyard.
83
Figure 8.5: Cat accessing bait in a Martinborough vineyard
Saxton (2004) reported that predators, such as humans, cats and dogs, have a role in
biological control of pest species whenever they supplied a constant pressure on the target
species. Both feral and domesticated cats were observed in rural and peri-urban areas. Cats
are strictly a carnivorous predatory species and will exploit any opportunity to obtain easy
access prey species (pers. obs.). Forty six cat visits were observed, they were either walking
near the bait or eating it in the study sites where bait was present, compared to only three
visits observed, in sites with no bait. It could be assumed that their presence correlated with a
decrease in pest passerine bird abundance in the sites with bait provided.
The Australian magpie, as other species of magpies (Pica pica), will predate on nesting birds,
eggs and sometimes nestlings (Moller, 1998; Kaplan, 2004; Morgan et al., 2006; Dunn et al.,
2010). Diet mainly consists of invertebrates, seeds and at times carrion and vertebrates
(Heather & Robertson, 1996). Magpies will attack other birds, but it is unclear whether this is
for reasons of direct predation, competition for resources, or a territorial defence response
related to the fear of predation on their own nestlings (Morgan et al., 2006). Kaplan (2004)
argued that there were few reports in Australia of magpies attacking and killing other birds,
while in New Zealand McCaskill (1945) and Morgan et al. (2005), claimed that magpies instil
fear in other bird species, frequently attacking them and occasionally killing them. It could be
84
assumed that pest passerine birds in vineyards perceive magpies as a threat and display
avoidance behaviours when encountering them.
Figure 8.6: Magpies attracted into a Martinborough vineyard after bait was placed on
the ground.
Median numbers of pest passerine bird abundance was significantly lower when bait was
being supplied to the vineyard sites compared to when no bait was supplied. Cresswell (2011)
noted the presence of predatory species can affect prey populations directly and indirectly,
whether lethal results take place or non-lethal predator avoidance results. Behavioural
adaptation to minimise the risk of predation, or fear of, can have a significant effect on
populations, communities, and ecosystems; including an alteration in habitat use along with
foraging behaviour (Lima, 1998; Cresswell, 2008; Dunn et al., 2010, Cresswell, 2011).
Passerine birds naturally fear predation by raptors and will avoid them (Conover, 1979;
Patzwahl, 2002; Kaplan, 2004; Göth, 2001; Daugovish et al,. 2006) and this was
demonstrated by the fleeing behaviour of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) (a significant vineyard
pest), observed via motion-sensored cameras on arrival of a harrier to the vineyard site (Figs.
8.6 & 8.7).
85
Figure 8.7: Starlings foraging unperturbed in vineyard where supplementary feeding
site is located and Australasian harrier approaching in the distance.
Figure 8.8: Starlings in vineyard disturbed by approach of Australasian harrier, (caught
on camera five minutes after figure 8.6).
In this study while the predators were the target species (i.e. those being supplementary fed),
the pest passerine birds had the dual role of being both the non-target and target species. Non-
target in that they were not being supplementary fed, but target species in that the increased
presence of predatory species decreased their presence in the vineyard, which was one of the
major goals of this project. Cortés-Avizanda et al. (2009b) reported that direct predation
86
pressure might have effects on prey species distribution, such as migration to areas that are
perceived safer, and abandonment of former habitat.
However, decision-making by prey as to where and when to forage can be affected by the
mere presence of predators (Howe, 1979; Valone & Lima, 1987; Thomson et al., 2006; Dunn
et al., 2010). Cortés-Avizanda et al. (2009b) also noted where supplementary feeding of
predatory species is implemented, residential or transient non-target prey species in the
supplementary feeding habitat may be affected with regard to spatial distribution.
8.6 Conclusion
In this study it was shown that when supplementary feeding in vineyards was implemented,
pest passerine bird numbers declined. Various predators swiftly (within 48 hours) inhabited
areas where food was supplied, reflected in the short time span it took for numbers to increase
from a period of no provision to supplementation. Swift habituation may be related to
seasonal declines in food resources. As this trial was completed in the winter months, it would
be interesting to compare results with spring/summer results when a greater abundance of
food resources for all species identified is available. However, this preliminary result
demonstrates optimism for future vineyard phenological events such as véraison, when the
grapes are beginning to ripen and pest bird populations predate on grapes. Further
supplementary feeding trials around the spring/ summer and more importantly, in vineyard
phenology, autumn, when greater number of pest birds would be present, would be beneficial.
87
Chapter 9
Problems and challenges
9.1 Introduction
Although the main theme of this thesis has been adhered to; managing populations of the
Australasian harrier to decrease passerine bird damage to vineyards, some of its original aims
have been either modified or abandoned. This has been for several reasons which have either
been identified shortly after the commencement of this project, or further on because of
failures to meet previous objectives, or because of new findings made. While some of the
reasons for modification, or ultimately abandonment of original objectives have been outlined
here, it was also pertinent to identify other challenges or relevant information that became
apparent as the project progressed.
9.2 Trapping and banding of harriers
Trapping and banding of harriers was to be an important initial step in this project. Catching
and banding of harriers by a viticulturalist in Hawke’s Bay had enabled a closer study of their
individual movements and their affinity to the vineyard (Beard, R. viticulturalist, pers. comm.,
July 2009). Approximately thirty harriers were trapped and banded in Beard’s vineyard where
an elevated feeding table had been placed. An aim of this study was to band harriers and to
assess whether birds would return to the feeding tables and remain in the vineyards where the
feeding tables were located. Loyalty to the vineyard would presumably result in harriers
foraging, and possibly nesting in suitable habitat in the vineyard, which would result in a
greater abundance of harriers in the vineyard during the pre-harvest period, protecting grapes
from passerine birds. Banding would also allow data to be gathered on whether individual
harriers could be retained in the vineyard study area by a regular supplementary feeding
programme. Banded harriers were to be visually observed and videoed to answer research
questions such as habituation to feeding tables within the vineyard.
After consultation with local iwi (New Zealand Maori tribe) and receiving support and
training by Department of Conservation (DOC) staff, a banding permit and wildlife research
and collection permit was applied for and granted by DOC. These permits restricted the
88
researcher to carry out trapping and banding on the premise that DOC staff were present at all
times.
Attempts to trap harriers were not successful. The logistics of arranging mutually agreeable
times was difficult; DOC staff were located 45 minutes away from the study sites and had to
be on standby, depending on trapping success. Trapping success was often thwarted by the
inclement weather that season; harriers were not to be trapped in wet weather for animal
welfare reasons. Approximately twenty trapping attempts were made, resulting in only three
harriers in one trapping session, caught and banded (Fig. 9.1).
Figure 9.1: One of the three banded Australasian harriers caught by camera trap,
returning to Burnt Spur vineyard, Martinborough, where animal carcasses were placed.
Two of these banded birds were caught via camera trap several months later, foraging at the
vineyard site that they were trapped. Although there was a lack in sample numbers, it
provided some anecdotal affinity data that show territoriality and perhaps loyalty to areas
where supplementary food was provided. The aim to attempt trapping again the following
season was prevented by the designated harrier banding DOC staff member resigning her
position, and no other suitably qualified person was available to assist.
89
9.3 Failure to establish a regular feeding pattern from the raised feeding table in some vineyard sites
Another aim of this research project was to train harriers to regularly take food from a raised
feeding table at vine canopy height. The viticulturist in the Hawke’s Bay reported harriers
regularly feeding from raised tables in his vineyard, and it was thought that this could be
repeated in Canterbury and Martinborough vineyards.
In the Canterbury vineyard, three harriers regularly fed from the tables and the protocol
developed to attain this was assumed to be successful in Martinborough vineyards. Anecdotal
reports from Martinborough vineyard staff indicated that harriers were regularly seen in all
vineyards sites. Confirming these reports, were visual identification of harriers circling and
foraging in vineyards. The preliminary method to coax harriers to feed off raised feeding
tables was successfully completed at Bentwood (see chapter 4) with at least three individuals
feeding regularly from the bait supplied on the table. In the Martinborough sites, only one
table was exploited regularly by harriers. Three other sites had harriers and other predators
(discovered when cameras were set up) feeding intermittently, and five sites were abandoned
after several weeks with no bait uptake from the tables. Attempts to encourage harriers to feed
off tables produced a variable success rate and chapter 4 offers potential reasons for these
inconsistencies.
9.4 Non-target feeders
A further aim of this thesis was to examine the biological control potential of the Australasian
harrier, by regular supplementary feeding. While some vineyards were successful feeding
sites and harriers did feed regularly (Bentwood vineyard, Canterbury and Pond Paddock
vineyard, Martinborough), others either did not establish any feeding or remained only
intermittent throughout the whole study period. Despite this, pest passerine bird numbers
decreased (see chapter 6) and grape damage was significantly reduced where feeding tables
were present (see chapter 7). With the late addition of motion-sensored cameras, it became
apparent that in addition to harriers taking the bait from the table, other predators, such as cats
(Felis catus) and magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) were also feeding. Cats were shown to be
adept at manoeuvring themselves on to the tables and taking the bait (Fig 9.2). This was
particularly evident when tables were lashed to fence lines within the vineyards, which was
done at the request of vineyard management. This requirement offered few options to move
90
the table to an area that was less easily accessible to cats. Additionally it would have been
optimum to have all tables for all vineyard sites at the same distance from the vines, e.g. in the
headland at the end of a row however, some vineyard management dictated where the tables
were to be sited to allow for vineyard maintenance activities, such as mowing.
Figure 9.2: Cat accessing bait laid out for harriers on elevated feeding table at Craggy
Range vineyard. Table is lashed to fencing as a requirement by vineyard staff.
Magpies were also observed exploiting the bait from the table (Fig. 9.3), which was
unexpected, but not unusual behaviour for this species to predate on animal carcasses (see
chapter 8). At this time the project changed tack, and experimental focus changed to include
effects of supplementary food placed in vineyards, and the attraction of all predatory species
including the harrier (see chapter 8).
91
Figure 9.4: Magpie at Cirrus Estate vineyard, Martinborough, with day-old cock chick
(harrier bait) taken from a feeding table, protruding from its beak.
9.5 Sheep, pheasants and human activity
The Martinborough landscape provides wide-ranging foraging opportunities for the
Australasian harrier. Situated in a valley this rural landscape, including sheep and cattle farms
interspersed with vineyards, is surrounded by braided rivers, all providing potential prey
species. Banding attempts and attempts to get harriers to feed off the tables coincided with the
lambing season. As previously discussed, afterbirth and dead lambs make up part of the
harriers seasonal diet (see chapter 4) and with many vineyards being in close proximity to
farming land, harriers were often seen foraging over lambing paddocks and were witnessed
several times carrying ovine afterbirth in their talons.
One feeding table trial vineyard that was, according to vineyard staff, frequented by harriers,
did not record any bait taken by harriers at any time from the table and was subsequently
abandoned as a study site. This site was later identified as being located next to a free-ranging
pheasant population, which supplied an abundance of eggs and nestlings as a potential prey
source for the harriers. Camera data recorded a pheasant foraging in the vineyard as well as
the occasional pheasant chick observed by the researcher.
92
Later in the study, it was discovered that there were a few vineyards that already were
operating their own biological programme, using the harrier. These vineyards were not part of
this thesis project. Many vineyard staff looks on the Australasian harrier favourably as a part
of the arsenal of weapons aimed at reducing pest bird damage in vineyards. With the rural
communities’ recreational and obligational extermination of mammalian pest species such as
rabbits and hares, carcasses were already being placed on the ground in some of the non-study
site vineyards. These sites may well have been regular feeding resources for harriers.
With the provision of all these other food resources for the harrier it could be assumed that
some of these factors may have confounded attempts to attract the harrier or to maintain
regular feeding visits to the tables. It is conceivable that harriers were not being driven
enough by hunger to brave the feeding table, due to adequate and easily accessible food
sources in the surrounding landscape (see chapter 4 for further discussion).
9.6 Wasps, flies, and decomposing carcasses
Wasps (Vespula spp.) can be a problem in vineyards. There are mixed opinions as to the
actual damage that wasps cause. Porter et al. (1994) believe that though the oozing grape juice
may attract wasps, they also limit the dripping juice by lapping it up, preventing further
damage to the rest of the fruit, whereby various fungi may enter. Other reports Gavlan et al.
(2008) and Cranshaw et al. (2011) noted that crops such as wine and table grapes are
seriously damaged by wasps, where they will break into the fruit and consume the juice.
Anecdotal reports have made it clear that wasps are not a welcome visitor in vineyards and
have suggested that when wasps attack the grapes the juice of the damaged grape turns brown
and changes the colour of the wine (Johner, P., pers. comm. 2011).
While wasps may directly attack the fruit (Cranshaw et al., 2011) alone, the silvereye
(Zosterops lateralis), a small self-introduced passerine bird, can be the catalyst for substantial
damage to ripe grapes. It pecks the grapes, providing an easy entrance for wasps to feed on
the seeping juice, and making the grapes vulnerable to bacterial and fungal diseases, such as
Botrytis cinerea (Boyce et al., 1999; Tracey & Saunders, 2003; Saxton, 2004).
Vespid wasps are often attracted to vertebrate carrion (Moretti et al., 201l) and the
introduction of the animal carcasses into the vineyards attracted a great deal of wasps,
93
especially if the carcasses were there for prolonged periods, e.g. more than three days.
Numerous wasps were seen feeding on hare and rabbit carcasses, and their presence, as well
as being unsightly and potentially hazardous to humans, might have resulted in a switch from
carcasses to ripening grapes with an easy access to grapes provided by the damage already
caused by the silvereye.
In particularly warmer climate conditions, the acceleration of the animal carcass bait
decomposition was greater. Fresh bait in the form of rabbits and hares became difficult to
source in the quantity required when feeding stations were set up in several vineyards at one
time. Sometimes if bait had not been consumed, or only a small amount taken, it was left for
longer periods to conserve bait resources. Bait was usually replaced every two to three days,
but even in this period, not only wasps would exploit the carcasses but flies (Diptera spp.)
would also lay their maggots on the carcasses. This was unsightly and where swift
decomposition of the bait took place an offensive stench would result.
9.7 Conclusion
Despite these various problems and challenges, overall results have shown that where
supplementary feeding has been implemented with tables (chapters 4-7) and without (chapter
8), passerine bird species have decreased (chapters 6, 8) and consequent grape damage has
decreased (chapter 7). The problems and challenges in this thesis have highlighted
opportunities to improve processes and planning, but they have also served to facilitate
problem solving skills and flexibility on the part of the researcher.
94
Chapter 10
Conclusions
10.1 Summary of findings
The theme of this thesis was essentially an animal behaviour study with an applied viticultural
focus. It was an inquiry into whether a native free ranging bird could be manipulated into
providing an ecosystem service to New Zealand viticulture by decreasing grape damage
caused by passerine birds. With the promising results demonstrated by the “Falcons for
Grapes” project in Marlborough, and its achievement in simultaneously decreasing pest
passerine bird populations, and decreasing grape damage (Saxton, 2010; Kross et al., 2011), it
was reasonable to expect that another more common New Zealand raptor, could also have the
potential to provide another such successful ecosystem service.
When the project was first conceived, it was an inquiry into whether the Australasian harrier,
which is a common presence around New Zealand viticultural landscapes, could achieve
similar results to the rarer New Zealand falcon. Supporting this was anecdotal evidence from
a Hawkes bay viticulturalist, who reported that where harriers were fed on raised feeding
tables, pest passerine bird numbers decreased and grape damage was less in the areas where
the tables were located.
Throughout all the study sites (Canterbury and Martinborough) and the surrounding
landscape, harriers were seen flying and scavenging off the many animal carcasses that were
present on the roadways. Passerine birds, including those in flocks, and singular, were
observed fleeing when harriers appeared, providing confirmation in the field that harriers
could possibly provide protection for grapes from grape-foraging passerine birds in vineyards.
To attract harriers to vineyards there needed to be an attractant. Supplementary feeding had
demonstrated positive results for the New Zealand falcon in Marlborough vineyards. The
effects of supplementary feeding on other raptor species around the world showed increasing
densities (Houston, 1996; Amar & Redpath, 2002; González et al., 2006; Robb et al., 2008),
improved breeding success (Dijkstra et al., 1980; Korpimaki, 1985; Simmons, 1994; Redpath
et al., 2001; González et al., 2006; Robb et al., 2008), and range restriction (Knight &
Anderson , 1990; Robb et al., 2008). Supplementary feeding was the attraction method used
95
in an attempt to increase and maintain increased densities of Australasian harriers in the study
vineyards.
Attempts to attract harriers and establish a regular feeding pattern from raised feeding tables
in some vineyards did not eventuate. Success at the beginning with a preliminary trial in a
Canterbury vineyard, where at least three individuals were feeding regularly, did not translate
into success later in the Martinborough vineyards. Nine vineyards at some time or another
throughout the project were sites where feeding tables were erected. One site resulted in no
bait uptake from the ground, and was abandoned earlier on in the trial, four sites were
abandoned due to no bait uptake from the raised tables, and three vineyards had harriers
feeding intermittently, while only one vineyard experienced harriers exploiting the table daily.
Neophobia may have been an explanation for latency to feed from the tables, coupled with an
abundance of other easily accessible prey, which negated the need for the harrier to trade off a
neophobic response for food. Neophobia is often an initial response to a novel object and
while some harriers overcame a neophobic response to the feeding tables, some harriers
continued to avoid the table. Other reasons suggested, were human-induced disturbance, as
some of the vineyards were situated in urban areas and negative interspecific relationships
with other species found in the vineyards, such as magpies.
The Australasian harrier preferred chicks as supplementary food in the springtime to rabbit
pieces, although it is not clear why. Seasonal (spring/summer) preferential food choice was
identified in the Canterbury vineyard where harriers were feeding regularly. During the
summer, there was no difference in prey selection and equivalent quantities of both foods
were taken. Factors that could explain this were seasonally differing nutritional requirements
required in the breeding season, the presentation of the bait on the table and an initial
neophobic response to its morphology or search image could be a factor where the harrier is
tuned into searching for nestlings/chicks in the spring period.
Where harrier feeding tables were present, passerine bird abundance significantly decreased
by (56%) compared to sites without tables. In Martinborough vineyards, three out of four
tables were visited by harriers intermittently, i.e. bait was not taken daily. Only one table was
visited regularly and despite this, five-minute bird counts showed that pest passerine birds
were not as common in sites with tables. Most passerine birds in both treatment and control
96
sites were observed flying, rather than having contact with the netting, or being within the net.
The table appeared to have no effect on proximity of birds to it and it was assumed that there
was no fear response to the table itself. It was likely the vineyard itself, or at least the area that
was in the count area (a half circle with a radius of 80 m) was avoided, possibly due to
increased harrier (or as later discovered, other predators as well) activity. The most common
species found in both treatment and control sites were starlings followed by blackbirds, which
appeared to avoid sites with tables more than starlings did. This could be related to
biological/ecological differences between bird species.
With the decreased abundance of birds in the vineyards where feeding tables were present, it
was assumed that the goal target of decreased grape damage during the pre-harvest season
would follow. Anecdotal reports suggested that grape damage to Pinot Noir grape varieties in
Martinborough vineyards was an issue. A grape damage survey pre-harvest in 2010
substantiated these reports showing that outer or edge vines sustained approximately 20-30%
damage that year, even with netting present. The following season (2011), when harriers had
been supplied with supplementary food on feeding tables, and were exploiting it either
regularly or intermittently, a further grape damage survey was completed before harvest. The
survey showed that where the tables were present (in four vineyards), there was a significant
decrease in grape damage (59%), compared to the vineyards without tables; demonstrating a
possible link between feeding tables and lower levels of grape damage.
With the addition of motion-sensored camera data resulting from cameras being trained onto
feeding tables, it became apparent that harriers were not the only predator exploiting the
feeding tables. Cats and magpies were also frequent visitors to the tables. The correlation
between decreased abundance of pest passerine birds and lower levels of grape damage where
feeding tables were present appeared to be linked to other predators in the vineyard as well as
the harrier.
Further inquiry into the presence of these other predators was undertaken and this revealed a
swift influx of magpies, cats, harriers and the occasional dog exploiting supplementary food
that was placed on the ground as an attractant to the vineyards. Five-minute bird counts
revealed a lower number of pest passerine birds were present when supplementary food was
being provided at ground level in all vineyards. This experiment took place in the winter
97
months and results could be explained by the seasonal lack of food resources for predators,
however it seems likely that some predators were also visiting tables in the summer trial.
10.2 Future Directions
This research is at the beginning of answering the question of whether native, wild
populations of animals can be manipulated into providing a successful ecosystem service;
manipulating the predatory behaviour of one species to mitigate the destructive behaviour of
another species in order to moderate economic losses.
Future directions here include further research and/or practical applications for wine growers.
10.2.1 Longer time period of feeding
A longer period of time and greater persistence in encouraging the harriers to feed off raised
tables may result, in the long-term, in a greater number of harriers regularly feeding from the
raised tables. Although the Canterbury site was easier to establish a regular feeding
programme, some sites may simply require a greater persistence over a longer time. A period
of approximately 3-5 months was required to get harriers to feed off the two tables that saw
regular feeding. This suggestion is supported by Marples et al. (2007) who pointed out that
with unfamiliar food sources birds may respond with “diet wariness” and may even show
reluctance to food consumption for extended periods.
10.2.2 Seasonal timing of a supplementary feeding programme
Commencement of a supplementary feeding programme for Australasian harriers should
begin in the winter months after grape harvest and its associated extensive human activity in
the vineyard has decreased. Winter is a time when prey species may be limited and harriers
may struggle to find adequate food resources. Starting a feeding programme at this time of
year also allows time for the harriers to become familiar with the vineyard and the table,
encouraging the harrier to forage regularly there. With established feeding over the winter
months, the spring season may encourage harriers to breed in or near the vineyard, resulting in
juveniles feeding and breeding there as well. An increase in harrier abundance in the vineyard
may result in greater numbers of birds protecting the grapes at one of the most important
times for the vineyard; in the autumn when grapes are ripening and at their most vulnerable to
passerine bird predation.
98
10.2.3 Supplementary food at all vineyard edges
Since the greatest amount of bird damage is sustained to the outer vines and edges of
vineyards it might be advantageous to provide supplementary food at all edges of the vineyard
to provide greater protection. In this study food was only placed at one edge area of the
vineyard and although all edges of the vineyards were not surveyed it could be assumed that
these other areas were less protected. It may be practical first to measure how far the
protection of the presence of a feeding table extends before placing food at all edges. Saxton
(2010), found that falcons fed supplementary food off feeding trays at a fixed point could
provide protection for some grape varieties up to 4 ha.
10.2.4 Control of other predatory populations in vineyards
The focus of this project was the Australasian harrier and its potential to decrease passerine
birds in vineyards. However, it was discovered that other predators were also accessing the
bait that was intended for the harrier. Other predators may have also been responsible for
lowered passerine bird numbers and consequent decreased grape damage. However, magpies
are antagonistic toward harriers (see chapter 8) and if a theme of encouraging a New Zealand
native species into vineyards is to be adhered to then magpie populations may need to be
controlled. Cats were also a problem accessing the vineyard bait, and could equally be
preventing harriers from regularly feeding in some situations. If decreased passerine bird
damage to grapes is the only goal then attempts to control other predatory populations is not
necessary.
10.2.5 Further grape damage assessment after predators have been regularly supplementary fed
Results showed that when all predators of pest passerine birds were supplementary fed, pest
passerine bird abundance decreased. This trial was completed in the winter months. Further
inquiry into a sustained feeding programme (where bait is easily accessible to all species on
the ground) up until harvest, and a pre-harvest grape damage assessment, may provide some
further information on the effectiveness of this bird control method.
10.2.6 Harrier activity frequency monitoring in vineyards with and without feeding tables
Investigation of harrier activity frequencies (i.e. flying over the vineyard) in vineyards could
be beneficial. A focal point in this project was harrier activity related to landing and foraging
off the feeding tables, however with supplementary food provided it would be of interest to
99
measure the effect of the supplementary food on the frequency of flights made by harriers
over vineyards.
10.2.7 Cost / benefit analysis of grape loss cost and the cost of feeding and maintaining harriers in vineyards.
A cost / benefit analysis would be useful to discover how much a 30% grape loss for exterior
vines (as seen in one vineyard in chapter 6) costs the vineyard, and how much it costs to
supply feeding tables with regular food to attract harriers.
10.3 Final Conclusions
Where feeding tables were present, passerine bird abundance decreased and grape damage
was significantly less than when feeding tables were not present. The Australian harrier fed
off some tables intermittently and some regularly, and appeared to have a preferential food
choice when offered, dependent on season. In essence, it could therefore be stated that it is
possible to manipulate the feeding behaviour of a free ranging bird to provide an ecosystem
service.
However, using a raised feeding table baited with animal carcasses is not necessarily a
reliable method to encourage harrier feeding in vineyards. There are several reasons why this
method may be unreliable, such as neophobia, alternative food sources that were easy to
access, human disturbance and interspecific competition. The best reason may merely be that
the motivation to feed off a raised table was not sufficient. The important aim is to get harriers
to spend a longer time in vineyards and to recognise them as places of abundant food
resource.
When supplemented with favoured foods the harriers’ increased presence appeared to deter
pest birds from either entering the vineyard and/or prevented them from foraging on grapes by
keeping them on the move. However, although harrier numbers increased in the vineyard it
was noted that other predators were accessing the supplementary food that was placed on
tables and intended for harriers. At the latter trial where supplementary food was placed on
the ground in order to attract all predators, decreased passerine bird numbers also resulted in
vineyards where food was supplied on the ground compared to those with no supplementation
on the ground. These findings perhaps negate the need for any feeding tables and put simply,
supplementary feeding alone may be the key to attracting harriers and other predators into
100
vineyards to achieve the fundamental goal of decreasing pest passerine bird numbers and
consequent grape damage.
If this study were based purely on controlling economic losses, then potentially any predator
that frightened passerine birds in New Zealand vineyards would suffice to mitigate economic
losses. However, this project was also about using a self-introduced New Zealand bird to
control populations of introduced birds that predate on introduced fauna. Although the
Australasian harriers’ ecosystem service abilities in this area are perhaps only satisfactory,
probably as part of an integrated pest management tool to decrease economic losses for the
wine-growing industry; perhaps its value also lies in displaying part of New Zealand’s native
biodiversity in the introduced flora and monoculture of New Zealand vineyards.
101
102
References
Abrams, P. A. (1984) Foraging time optimization and interactions in food webs. American
Naturalist 124 80–96.
Alley, L. (2003) Falcons in California vineyards protect grapes.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/falcons110203.cfm Retrieved September 2011
Amar, A., Redpath, S. M (2002) Determining the cause of the hen harrier decline on the
Orkney Islands: an experimental test of two hypotheses. Animal Conservation 5 21–
28.
Aumann, T. (1988) The diet of the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) in Southeastern
Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 15 (6) 587 – 594.
Baines, D., Redpath, S., Richardson, M., Thirgood, S. (2008) The direct and indirect effects
of predation by hen harriers Circus cyaneus on trends in breeding birds on a Scottish
grouse moor. Ibis 150 (1) 27-36.
Bairlein, F. (2002) How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat accumulation in
migratory songbirds. Naturwissenschaften 89 1-10.
Baker-Gabb, D. J. (1978) Aspects of the biology of the Australasian Harrier (Circus
aeruginosus approximans Peale 1848). M.Sc. thesis, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand.
Baker-Gabb, D. J. (1981a) The diet of the Australasian Harrier (Circus approximans) in the
Manawatu Rangitikei Sand Country, New Zealand. Notornis 28 241-254.
Baker-Gabb, D. J. (1981b) Breeding behaviour and ecology of the Australasian
Harrier (Circus approximans) in the Manawatu Rangitikei Sand Country, New
Zealand. Notornis 28 103-119.
Beecher, W. J. (1978) Feeding adaptations and evolution in the starling. Bulletin Chicago
Academy of Science 11 269-298.
Beissinger, S. R., Donnay, T. J., Walton, R. (1994) Experimental analysis of diet
specialization in the snail kite: the role of behavioural conservatism. Oecologia 100
54-65.
Bentz, T., Lapidge, S., Dall, D., Sinclair, R. G. (2007) Managing starlings in Australia – CAN
DRC-1339 be the answer? Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species. Paper 2.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrcinvasive/2
103
Berge, A. J., Delwiche, M. J., Gorenzel, W. P., Salmon, T. P. (2007a) Sonic broadcast unit for
bird control in vineyards. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 23 (6) 819-825.
Berge, A. J., Delwiche, M. J., Gorenzel, W. P., Salmon, T. P. (2007b) Bird control in
vineyards using alarm and distress calls. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 58 (1) 135-143.
Biondi, L. M., Bó, M. S., Vassallo, A. I. (2010) Inter-individual and age differences in
exploration, neophobia and problem-solving ability in a Neotropical raptor (Milvago
chimango). Animal Cognition 13 (5) 701-710.
Bisson, L. F., Waterhouse, A. L., Ebeler, S. E., Walker, M. A., Lapsley
J. T. (2002) The
present and future of the international wine industry. Nature 418 696-699.
Blough, P. M. (2001) Cognitive strategies and foraging in pigeons. In R. G. Cook (Ed.),
online publication. Avian visual www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/pblough/
Bomford, M. (1992) Bird Pest Impact and Research in Australia: a Survey and Bibliography.
Working Paper No. WP/3/92. Bureau of Rural Resources, Canberra.
Bomford, M., Sinclair, R. (2002) Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and
future directions. Emu 102(1) 29-45.
Bond, A. B., Kamil, A. C. (1999) Searching image in blue jays: Facilitation and interference
in sequential priming. Animal Learning & Behaviour 27 (4) 461-471.
Boudreau, G. W. (1972) Factors related to bird depredations in vineyards. American Journal
of Enology and Viticulture 23 (2) 50.
Boutin, S. (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns,
problems and future. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60 203–220.
Boyce, L., Meister, A., Lang, S. (1999) An economic analysis of bird damage in vineyards of
the Marlborough region. Discussion Paper in Natural Resource and Environmental
Economics - Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies, Massey University
(20) 68 pp.
Boyce, L., Brown, H., Lang, A., Meister, A. (2001) Economics of bird control. Proceedings
of the Seventh International Symposium on Orchard and Plantation Systems, (557)
327-333.
Carere, C., Montanino, S. Moreschini, F., Zoratto, F., Chiarotti, F., Santucci, D., Alleva, E.
(2009) Aerial flocking patterns of wintering starlings, Sturnus vulgaris, under
different predation risk. Animal Behaviour 77 (1) 101-107.
104
Chamberlain, D. E., Gosler, A. G., Glue, D. E. (2007) Effects of the winter beechmast crop on
bird occurrence in British gardens. Bird Study 54 120-126.
Conover, M. R. (1979) Response of birds to raptor models. Wildlife Damage Management,
Internet Center for Bird Control Seminars Proceedings.
Cortés-Avizanda A., Selva, N., Carrete, M., Donázar, J. A. (2009a) Effects of carrion
resources on herbivore spatial distribution are mediated by facultative scavengers.
Basic and Applied Ecology 10 265–272.
Cortés-Avizanda, A., Carrete, M., Serrano, D., Donázar, J. A. (2009b) Carcasses increase the
probability of predation of ground-nesting birds: a caveat regarding the conservation
value of vulture restaurants. Animal Conservation 12 (1) 85-88.
Cranshaw, W. S., Larsen, Jr., H. J., Zimmerman, R. J. (2011) Notes on Fruit Damage by the
European Paper Wasp, Polistes dominula (Christ) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)
Southwestern Entomologist Scientific Note 36 (1) 103-105.
Cresswell, W. (2008) Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis 150 3–17.
Cresswell, W. (2011) Predation in bird populations. Journal of Ornithology 152 (Suppl. 1)
251–263.
Cullen, R., Forbes, S., Grout, R., Smallman, C. (2010) Evaluation of Conservation Biological
Control Innovation in Winegrowing. Conference Proceedings NZARES Conference
Tahuna Conference Centre – Nelson, New Zealand.
Daugovish, O., Yamomoto, M., Marrow, M. (2006) Bird control in production strawberries
with falconry. University of California Cooperative Conference Proceedings.
Dawson, D. G., Bull, P. C. (1975) Counting birds in New Zealand forests. Notornis 22 (2)
101-109.
DeBach, B. P. (1964) Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall,
London, U.K. pp. 3-20.
DeHaven, R. (1974) Bird damage to wine grapes in central California, 1973. Vertebrate Pest
Conference Proceedings Collection. Proceedings of the 6th Vertebrate Pest
Conference.
DeVault, T. L., Rhodes, Jr., O. E., Shivik, J. A. (2003) Scavenging by vertebrates:
behavioural, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy
transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos 102 225-234.
105
Devereux, C., Fernàndez-Juricic, E., Krebs, J. R., Whittingham, M. J. (2008) Habitat affects
escape behaviour and alarm calling in common starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Ibis 150
(Supp. 1) 191-198.
Dijkstra, C., Vuursteen, L., Daan, S., Masman, D. (1980) Clutch size and laying date in the
kestrel Falco tinnunculus: effect of supplementary food. Ibis 124 210–213.
Duckett, J. E. (1991) Management of the barn owl (Tyto alba javanica) as a predator of rats in
oil palm (Elaeis quineensis) plantations in Malaysia. Birds of Prey Bulletin 4 11-24.
Duminy, H .N. (2004) Modern ecological wine grape production in South Africa. Master’s
thesis. Cape Wine Academy, South Africa.
Dunn, J. C., Hamer, K. C., Benton, T. G. (2010) Fear for the family has negative
consequences: indirect effects of nest predators on chick growth in a farmland bird.
Journal of Applied Ecology 47 994–1002.
Durant, J. M., Massemin, S., Thouzeau, C., Handrich, Y. (2000) Body reserves and nutritional
needs during laying preparation in barn owls. Journal Comparative Physiology 170
253-260.
Dzhabbarov, A. D. (1988) Means for repelling birds in orchards and vineyards. Sadovodstvo i
Vinogradarstvo (11) 17-18.
Ehler, L. E. (1998) Conservation biological control: Past, present and future. In: Barbosa, P.
(1998) Conservation Biocontrol Academic Press, San Diego, pp.1-8.
Elmer, P. A. G., Michailides, T. J. (2004) Epidemiology of Botrytis cinerea in orchard and
vine crops. Botrytis: biology, pathology and control 243-272.
Erickson, W. A., Marsh, R. E., Salmon, T. P. (1990) A review of falconry as bird-hazing
technique. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collections Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference.
Feare, C. (1984) The Starling. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Fennell, J. F. M. (1980) An observation of carrion preference by the Australasian harrier
(Circus approximans gouldi) Notornis 27 404–405.
Fisher, A. (1992) Vigilance and Variation; The key to victory in the vineyards. Wine Industry
Journal, August, 140-143.
Flaherty, D. L. (1992) Grape Pest Management (2nd
Ed.) Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California.
106
Fleming P. (1990) Some other bird control techniques. In: National Bird Pest Workshop
Proceedings. Fleming P., Temby I. and Thompson J., (Eds.) pp. 143–145.
Department Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria & NSW Agriculture and
Fisheries, Orange.
Forbes, N. A., Flint, C. G. (2000) Raptor Nutrition. Honeybrook Farm Animal Foods 23 - 30.
Fox, N. C., Saxton, V. P., Trought, M. C. T., Holland, J. D. (2006) Falcons for grapes: a
solution for bird damage? New Zealand Plant Protection 59 378.
Fox, N. C. (2008) http://www.falcons.co.uk/images/nzf/ffgmanagement%20plan%202008-
2011.pdf
Fukuda, Y. (1999) Evaluation of a visual bird-scarer, the ‘peaceful pyramid' in Canterbury
vineyards. Hons. thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Fukuda, Y., Frampton, C. M., Hickling, G. J. (2008) Evaluation of two visual birdscarers, the
Peaceful Pyramid (R) and an eye-spot balloon, in two vineyards. New Zealand
Journal of Zoology 35 (3) 217-224.
Galvan, T. L., Koch, R. L. and Hutchison, W. D. (2008) Impact of fruit feeding on
overwintering survival of the multicolored Asian lady beetle, and the ability of this
insect and paper wasps to injure wine grape berries. Entomologia Experimentalis et
Applicata 128 429–436.
González, L. M., Margalida, A., Sánchez, R., Oria, J. (2006) Supplementary feeding as an
effective tool for improving breeding success in the Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila
adalberti) Biological Conservation 129 477-486.
González-Acuña, D., Briones, E., Ariles, K., Valenzuela-Dellarossa, G., Corales, S., Figueroa,
R. A. (2009) Seasonal variation in the diet of the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
in a suburban area of Southern Chile. Journal of Raptor Research 43 (2)134-141.
Göth, A. (2001) Innate predator-recognition in Australian Brush-turkey (Alectura lathami,
megapodiidae) hatchlings. Behaviour 138 117-136.
Goutner, V., Alivizatos, H. (2003) Diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) and little owl (Athene
noctua) in wetlands of northeastern Greece. Belgian Journal of Zoology 133 15-22.
Grand, T. C., Dill, L. M. (1999) Predation risk, unequal competitors and the free distribution.
Evolutionary Ecology Research 1 389-409.
Greenberg, R. (1983) The role of neophobia in determining the degree of foraging
specialisation in some migrant warblers. The American Naturalist 122 (4) 444-453.
107
Greenberg, R. (1990) Ecological plasticity, neophobia, and resource use in birds. Studies in
Avian Biology 13 431-437.
Greenberg, R. (2003) The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative
behaviour of birds. In: Animal Innovation (Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N., eds).
Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 175-196.
Greenberg, R., Mettke-Hofmann, C. (2001) Ecological aspects of neophobia and neophilia in
birds. In: Current Ornithology, Volume 16, pg 119 Val Nolan, Jr., Charles F.
Thompson (Eds.) Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Greenwood & Harvey (1982) The natal and breeding dispersal of birds. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 13 1-21.
Griffin, A. S., Blumstein, D. T., Evans, C. S. (2000) Training captive-bred or translocated
animals to avoid predators. Conservation Biology 14 (5) 1317-1326.
Gruar, D., Peach, W. J., Taylor, R. (2003) Summer diet and body condition of song thrushes
in stable and declining farmland populations. Ibis 145 637–649.
Gurr, G. M., Wratten, S. D., Luna, J. M. (2003) Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest
management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology 4 (2) 107-116.
Hampe, A. (2001) The role of fruit diet within a temperate breeding bird community in
southern Spain. Bird Study 48 116–123.
Hanni, E., Eccli, E. (2006) Nets to protect against hail and birds. Informatore Agrario 62 (47)
55-60.
Heather, B., Robertson, H. (1996) The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Penguin
books (N. Z) Ltd, Auckland New Zealand.
Herrmann, E., Anderson, M. D. (2007) Foraging behaviour of damage-causing birds in table
grape vineyards in the Orange River Valley, South Africa. African Journal of
Enology 28 (2) 150-154.
Hickling, G. J. (1995) Evaluation of eye-spot balloons in a Canterbury vineyard. Lincoln
University Wildlife management Report, No.7.
Hoddle, M. S. (2004) Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic
species. Conservation Biology 18 (1) 38-49.
Holdaway, R. N., Worthy, T. H. (1997) A reappraisal of the late Quaternary fossil vertebrates
of Pyramid Valley Swamp, North Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal
of Zoology 1 69-121.
108
Holland, J. D., McCutcheon (2007) Satellite tracking a New Zealand falcon (Falco
novaeseelandiae). Notornis 54 20-27.
Hothem, R. L., De Haven, R.W. (1982) Raptor-mimicking kites for reducing bird damage to
wine grapes. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Collection: Proceedings of the
Tenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of Nebraska- Lincoln.
Houston, D. C. (1996) The effect of altered environments on vultures In: Raptors in Human
Landscapes. Raptor Research Foundation. Academic Press. New York pp.327-336.
Howe, H. F. (1979) Fear and frugivory. The American Naturalist 114 (6) 925-931.
Jacometti, M. A., Wratten, S. D., Walter, M. (2007) Management of understorey to reduce the
primary inoculum of Botrytis cinerea: Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards.
Biological Control 40 (1) 57-64.
Jarman, P. J. (1990) In Bomford, M. (1992) Bird Pest Impact and Research in Australia: a
Survey and Bibliography. Working Paper No. WP/3/92. Bureau of Rural Resources,
Canberra.
Jarvis, M. J. F. (1985). Problem birds in vineyards. Deciduous Fruit Grower 35 (4) 132-136.
Jensen, G. V. (1974) A study of bird damage in a commercial orchard in the Auckland
district. Annual Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture 2 47-50.
Johnson, S. J. (1986) Development of hunting and self-sufficiency in juvenile red-tailed
hawks (Buteoja maicensis). Raptor Research 20 (1) 29-34.
Kafkaletou-Diez, A., Tsachalidis, E. P., Poirazidis, K. (2008) Seasonal variation in the diet of
the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in a Northeastern agricultural area of Greece. Journal
of Biological Research 10 181-189.
Kaplan, G. T. (2004) Australian magpie: biology and behaviour of an unusual songbird
Australian Natural History Series (Australian Natural History) Csiro Publishing,
University of New England.
Kay, B. J., Twigg, L. E., Korn, T. J., Nicol, H. I. (1994) The use of artificial perches to
increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildlife Research
21(1) 95 – 105.
Kenward, R. E. (1982) Goshawk hunting behaviour, and range size as a function of food and
habitat availability. Journal of Ecology 51 69-80.
Kenward, R. E. (1996) Goshawk adaptation to deforestation: Does Europe differ from North
America? In: Bird, D .M., Varland, D., Negro, J. J. Raptors in human landscapes:
109
adaptations to built and cultivated environments. Raptor Research Foundation.
Academic Press. New York pp. 233-245.
Kenward, R. E. Marcström, V. Karlbom, M. (1993) Post-nestling behaviour in goshawks,
Accipiter gentilis: The causes of dispersal. Animal Behaviour 46 (2) 365-370.
Knight, R. L., Anderson, D. P. (1990) Effects of Supplemental Feeding on an Avian
Scavenging Guild Wildlife Society Bulletin 18 (4) 388-394.
Komeda, K., Inoue, M., Ichinose, H., Takafuji, A. (2005) Avoidance of bird damage on
grapes with a simple net and viticulture method. Japanese Journal of Applied
Entomology and Zoology 49 (4) 245-250.
Korpimaki, E. (1985) Rapid tracking of microtine populations by their avian predators:
possible evidence for stabilising predation. Oikos 45 281–284.
Korpimȁki, E. (1985) Diet of the kestrel Falco tinnunculus in the breeding season. Ornis
Fennica 62 130-137.
Kross, S. M., Tylianakis, J. M., Nelson, X. J. (2011) Effects of introducing threatened falcons
into vineyards on abundance of Passeriformes and bird damage to grapes.
Conservation Biology doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01756.x
Lambertucci, S. A., Speziale, K. L., Rogers, T. E., Morales, J. M. (2009) How do roads affect
the habitat use of an assemblage of scavenging raptors? Biodiversity Conservation 18
2063-2074.
Law, B.S. (1995) The effect of energy supplementation on the local abundance of the
common blossom bat Syconycteris Australis in South Eastern Australia. Oikos 72 42-
50.
Lewis, S. B., Titus, K., Fuller, M. R., (2006) Northern Goshawk diet during the nesting
season in Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 70 (4) 1151–1160.
Lima, S. L. (1985) Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators:
a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia (Berlin) 66 60-67.
Lima, S. L. (1990) Protective cover and the use of space: Different strategies in finches Oikos
58 (2)151-158.
Lima, S. L., Valone, T. J. (1991) Predators and avian communities organisation: an
experiment in a semi-desert grassland. Oecologica 86 105-112.
110
Lima, S. L. (1998) Non-lethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience
48 (1) 25-34.
López-Bao , J. V., Rodríguez, A., Palomares, F (2008) Behavioural response of a trophic
specialist, the Iberian lynx, to supplementary food: Patterns of food use and
implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 141 (7) 1857-1867.
McCann, C. (1953) The winter food of the blackbird in N. Z. Notornis 5 (6) 198-199.
McCaskill, L. W. (1945) Preliminary report on the present position of the Australian magpies
(Gymnorhina hypoleuca and G. tibicen) in New Zealand. The New Zealand Bird
Notes 1 86-104.
Magrath, R. D., Pitcher, B. J., Gardner, J. L. (2007) A mutual understanding? Interspecific
responses by birds to each other’s aerial alarm calls. Behavioral Ecology 18 944-
951.
Marchant, S., Higgins, P. J. (1993) Raptors to Lapwings, Handbook of Australian, New
Zealand and Antarctic Birds (vol. 2). Oxford University Press Melbourne.
Marples, N. M., Quinlan, M., Thomas, R. J., Kelly, D. J. (2007) Deactivation of diet wariness
through experience of novel food. Behavioural Ecology 18 803-810.
Mason, C. F. (2000) Thrushes now largely restricted to the built environment in eastern
England. Diversity Distributions 6 189–194.
Mason, J. R., Clark, L. (2000) The chemical senses in birds. In: Sturkie's Avian Physiology
5th Edition (Whittow, G. C. ed.). Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 39-56.
Matthiopoulos, J., (2003) Model-supervised kernel smoothing for the estimation of spatial
usage. Oikos 102 367–377.
Mettke-Hofmann, C., Winkler, H., Leisler, B. (2002) The significance of ecological factors
for exploration and neophobia in parrots. Ethology 108 249-272.
Møeller, A. P. (1998) Nest predation and nest site choice in passerine birds in habitat patches
of different size: a study of magpies and blackbirds. Oikos 53 215-221.
Moretti, T. C., Giannotti, E.,Thyssen, P. J., Solis, D. R., Godoy, W. A. (2011)
Bait and habitat preferences, and temporal variability of social wasps (Hymenoptera:
Vespidae) attracted to vertebrate carrion. Journal of Medical Entomology 48
(5)1069-75.
Morgan, D., Waas, J. R, Innes, J. (2005) Magpie interactions with other birds in New
Zealand: results from a literature review and public survey. Notornis 52 61-74.
111
Morgan, D., Waas, J. R., Innes, J. (2006) The relative importance of Australian magpies
(Gymnorhina tibicen) as nest predators of rural birds in New Zealand. New Zealand
Journal of Zoology 33 (1) 17-29.
Morgan, D., Waas, J. R., Innes, J. (2006) Do territorial non-breeding Australian magpies
Gymnorhina tibicen influence the local movement of rural birds in New Zealand?
Ibis 148 330-342.
Mueller, H .C. (1977) Prey selection in the American kestrel: experiments with two species of
prey. The American Naturalist 111 (977) 25-29.
Mũnoz, A., Murúa, R. (1990) Control of small mammals in a pine plantation (Central Chile)
by modification of the habit of predators (Tyto alba Strigiforme and Pseudalopexi
sp., Canidae). Oecologica 11 (2) 251-261.
Nelson, P. C. (1990) Bird problems in New Zealand- methods of control. Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference University, of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Newey, S., Allison, P., Thirgood, S. J., Smith, A., Graham, I. G. (2009) Using PIT tag
technology to target supplementary feeding studies. Wildlife Biology 15 405–411.
Newey, S. Allison, P., Thirgood, S., Smith, A. A., Graham, I. M. (2010) Population and
individual level effects of over-winter supplementary feeding mountain hares.
Journal of Zoology 282 14–220.
Newton, I. (1979) Population Ecology of Raptors T. D. Poyser Ltd. London.
Newton, I. (1980) The role of food in limiting bird numbers Ardea 68 11-30.
Newton, I., Marquiss, M. (1982) Fidelity to breeding area and mate in sparrowhawks
(Accipiter nisus). Journal of Animal Ecology 51 (1) 327-341.
Newton, I., Wyllie, I., Mearns, R. (1986) Spacing of sparrowhawks in relation to food supply.
Journal of Animal Ecology 55 (1) 361-370.
Norrdahl, K., Korpimaki, E. (1998) Fear in farmlands: how much does predator avoidance
affect bird community structure? Journal of Avian Biology 29 79-85.
Nye, P. A. (1975) Thrushes feeding on marine snails Notornis 22 (3) 24.
N. Z. Wildlife Act (1953) http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/role/legislation/wildlife-act/
Patzwahl, W. (2002) New ways in bird control. Obst- und Weinbau 138 (22) 582-583.
112
Peach, W. J., Robinson, R. A., Murray, K. A. (2004) Demographic and environmental causes
of the decline of rural Song Thrushes Turdus philomelos in lowland Britain. Ibis 146
(Suppl. 2) 50–59.
Pietrewicz, A. T., Kamil, A. C. (1979) Search image formation in the blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata). Science 204 1332-1333.
Plesser, H., Omasi, S., Yomtov, Y. (1983). Mist nets as a means of eliminating bird damage
to vineyards. Crop Protection 2 (4) 503-506.
Porter, R. E. R., Rudge, M. R., McLennan, J. A. (1994) Birds and small mammals-a pest
control manual. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Preston, C. R. (1990) Distribution of raptor foraging in relation to prey biomass and habitat
structure. The Condor 92 107-112.
Puckey, H. L., Lill, A. O’Dowd, D. J. (1996) Fruit colour choices of captive silvereyes
(Zosterops Lateralis). Condor 98 780–790.
Redpath, S. M., Thirgood S. J., Leckie F. M. (2001) Does Supplementary feeding reduce
predation of red grouse by hen harriers? Hen harrier foraging success in relation to
land use in Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38 1157–68.
Reinert, S. E. (1984) Use of introduced perches by raptors: experimental results and
management implications. Raptor Research 18 (1) 25-29.
Robb, G. N., McDonald, R. A., Chamberlain, D. E., Bearhop, S. (2008) Food for thought:
supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (9) 476–484.
Robertson, H. A. (1980) Selection of carrion by the Australasian harrier (Circus
approximans) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 7 579-583.
Rojas, R. A. F., Stappung, E. M .C. (2005) Seasonal diet of the Aplomado falcon (Falco
femoralis) in an agricultural area of Araucania Southern Chile. Journal of Raptor
Research 39 (1) 55-60.
Salamolard, M., Butet, A., Leroux, A., Bretagnolle, V. (2000) Responses of an avian predator
to variations in prey density at a temperate latitude. Ecology 81 (9) 2428-2441.
Santos, A., Sanchez, A., Marquina, D. (2004) Yeasts as biological agents to control Botrytis
cinerea. Microbiogical Research 159 (4) 331-338.
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
113
Saxton, V. P. (2002) Bird Behaviour in Marlborough Vineyards 2002. Report for NZ
Winegrowers, Centre for Viticulture and Oenology, Lincoln University, New
Zealand.
Saxton, V. P. (2004) Influence of ripening grape compounds on behavioural responses of
birds. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Saxton, V. P., Creasy, G. L., Paterson, A. M., Trought, M. C. T. (2004) Comparative
behaviour of free-ranging blackbirds (Turdus merula) and silvereyes (Zosterops
lateralis) with artificial grapes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85 157-166.
Saxton, V. P. (2006) To develop a robust statistical method for assessing bird damage to
crops, particularly fruit. Final report to the Sustainable Farming Fund. MAF,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Saxton, V. P. (2008) Measuring grape damage as an indicator of bird pressure. Annual
vintage report on damage to grapes in conjunction with the Falcons for Grapes
project. http://www.nzwine.com/reports/
Saxton, V. P. (2010) Sustainable Farming Fund Project L06/061. Measuring grape damage as
an indicator of bird pressure. Final report on damage to grapes in conjunction with
the Falcons for Grapes Project.
Saxton, V. P., Kean, E. (2010) New Zealand falcon ( Falco novaeseelandiae) project-
identification of obstacles to adoption by the industry. The Australian and New
Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker. Annual Technical Issue 2010.
Seaton, R., Hyde, N., Holland, J. D., Minot, E. O., Springett, B. P. (2008) Breeding season
diet and prey selection of the New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) in a
plantation forest. Journal of Raptor Research 42 (4) 256-264.
Saxton, V. P., Mulder, I., Creasy, G. L., Paterson, A. M., Ross, J. G., Trought, M. C. T.
(2011) Comparative behavioural responses of silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis) and
European blackbirds (Turdus merula) to secondary metabolites in grapes..Austral
Ecology 36 233–239.
Simmons, R. E. (1994) Supplemental food alters egg hierarchies within harrier clutches.
Oikos 71 341-348.
Sinclair, R. (2002) Guidelines for best practice bird management. Animal & Plant Control
Commission, Department of Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation.
Somers, C. M., Morris, R. D. (2002) Birds and wine grapes: foraging activity causes small-
scale patterns in single vineyards. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 (3) 511-523.
114
Spadoro, D., Gullino, M. L. (2005) Improving the efficacy of biocontrol agents against soil
borne pathogens. Crop Protection. 24 601–613.
Spurr, E. B, Coleman, J. D. (2005) Cost-effectiveness of bird repellents for crop protection.
Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference, Wellington, New
Zealand. Pp. 227–233.
Stanley, M. C., Lill, A. (2001) Response of silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis) to dietary tannins:
the paradox of secondary metabolites. Australian Journal of Zoology 49 633-640.
Stanley, M. C., Lill, A. (2001) Accessibility as a factor influencing frugivory by silvereyes
(Zosterops lateralis): field comparisons with aviary experiments. Australian Journal
of Zoology 49 171-182.
Stanley, M. C., Lill, A. (2002) Avian fruit consumption and seed dispersal in a temperate
Australian woodland. Austral Ecology 27 137–148.
Taber, M. R. (2002) Netting applications for agricultural bird control. Twentieth Vertebrate
Pest Conference Proceedings 117-122.
Terraube, J., Arroyo, B. (2011) Factors influencing diet variation in a generalist predator
across its range distribution. Biodiversity Conservation 20 2111–2131.
Thirgood, S. J., Redpath, S. M., Graham, I. M. (2003) What determines the foraging
distribution of raptors on heather moorland? Oikos 100 15-24.
Thomson, D. L., Green, R. E., Gregory, R. D., Baillie, S. R. (2006) The widespread declines
of songbirds in rural Britain do not correlate with the spread of avian predators.
Proceeding of the Royal Society 265 (1410) 2057-2062.
Thomson, R. L., Forsman, J. T., Sarda-Palomera, F., Monkkonen, M. (2006) Fear factor: prey
habitat selection and its consequences in a predation risk landscape. Ecography 29
507–514.
Tinbergen, L. (1960) The natural control of insects in pinewoods: Factors influencing the
intensity of predation by songbirds. Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie 13 265-343.
Tobin, M. E. (1984) Relative grape damaging potential of three species of birds. California
Agriculture 38 9–10.
Tobin, M. E., Dolbeer, R. A., Webster, C. M., Seamans, T. W. (1991) Cultivar differences in
bird damage to cherries. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19 (2) 190-194.
115
Todd, L. D., Poulin, R. G., Brigham, R. M., Bayne, E. M., Wellicome, T. I. (2007) Pre-
migratory movements by juvenile burrowing owls in a patchy landscape. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 2 (2) Art. 4.
Tollan, A. M. (1988) Maintenance energy requirements and energy assimilation efficiency of
the Australasian harrier. Ardea 76 181-186.
Tome, D. (1994) Diet composition of the long-eared owl in central Slovenia: seasonal
variation in prey use. Journal of Raptor Research 28 (4) 253-258.
Tracey, J., Saunders, G. (2003) Bird damage to the wine grape industry. A report to the
Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Agriculture, Orange.
Tracey, J., Bomford, M., Hart, Q., Saunders, G., Sinclair, R. (2007) Managing bird damage to
fruit and other horticultural crops. Bureau of Rural Sciences Canberra, A.C.T.
Valone, T. J., Lima, S. L. (1987) Carrying food items to cover for consumption: the behaviour
of ten bird species feeding under the risk of predation. Oecologica 71 286-294.
Verbeylen, G. De Bruyn, L., Matthysen, E. (2003) Patch occupancy, population density and
dynamics in a fragmented red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris population Ecography 26
118–128.
Village, A. (1982) The home range and densities of kestrels in relation to vole abundance.
Journal of Animal Ecology 51 413-428.
Watkins, Nigel G. (1999) Ecological correlates of bird damage in a Canterbury vineyard.
Master of Applied Science Thesis, Lincoln University.
Whittingham, M. J., Evans, K. L. (2004) The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of
birds in agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146 (Suppl. 2) 210–220.
Willson, M. F., Graff, D. A., Whelan, C. J. (1990) Colour preferences of frugivorous birds in
relation to the colours of fleshy fruits. Condor 92 (3) 545–553.
Wilmers, C. C., Stahler, D. R., Crabtree, R. L., Smith, D., Getz, W. M. (2003) Resource
dispersion and consumer dominance: scavenging at wolf and hunter-killed carcasses
in Greater Yellowstone, USA. Ecology Letters 6 996–1003.
Wong, M. (2002) Spacing and ecology of the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) in
the Rangitikei-Manawatu Sand Country. Masters of Science Thesis Massey
University, New Zealand.
116
Yim, Y. J., Kang, S. J. (1982) Control of bird damage in the vineyard. The Research Reports
of the Office of Rural Development, Korea.
117
Appendix 1
118
Thank you letter to participating vineyard owners
Marlene Leggett
486 Lake Ferry Road
R.D.1
Martinborough 5781
(06) 3069014
Dear (.........)
This is just a note to let you know that I have now completed my research into managing
populations of the Australasian harrier to reduce passerine bird damage in vineyards, and I
would like to give you a very brief summary of the main findings.
Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere gratitude for allowing me to
use your vineyards to conduct my research. Without access to your vineyards, I would not
have been able to complete this research and I have appreciated the input and advice that I
have received from you along the way.
As you are aware, I placed raised feeding tables in vineyards, baited with supplementary food;
hares, rabbits, brushtail possums, and dead chicks and while some sites attracted harriers,
some attracted them only intermittently and some harriers would not take any bait unless it
was off the ground. Throughout my study, there has been discussion on this and we have
made various assumptions as to why this may be.
The research went as follows:
Attracting the harriers to the vineyard with supplementary food and trying to get them
to take this food off a raised table. This met with limited success as only one table saw
harriers feeding regularly while other tables saw harriers feeding intermittently off
them.
A look at what food harriers prefer: contrasting spring and summer choices (rabbits
and dead chicks). Harriers preferred chicks to rabbit pieces at springtime which may
be for many reasons (which I have discussed in the thesis), and have no preferential
food choice in the summer.
The numbers and behaviours of pest bird species where the tables have been placed,
when harriers have been feeding either regularly, or intermittently off the tables.
119
A grape damage assessment was completed just before harvest where the tables were
present compared to vineyards with no table present. Grape damage was less where
feeding tables were present (see graph, Fig. 2).
Not only were harriers attracted to the feeding tables, but also magpies and cats, which
I managed to catch on cameras, set up in the vineyards, many times. Because of this,
an experiment was completed on luring all predators, harriers, cats, magpies into the
vineyard with bait placed on the ground this time. The number of predators was
counted with no bait supplied and then bait supplied. Additionally, I looked at the
number of pest birds present in the vineyards when bait was laid out for predators and
when there was no bait laid out. Predators increased (harriers were the most abundant
over cats and magpies), and pest bird numbers were lower when bait was laid out for
predators.
In short, results have shown that where feeding tables are present and whether the harrier is
feeding regularly or intermittently from those tables, pest birds (Fig.1), are less and grape
damage decreases (Fig. 2). In addition, when harriers and other predators are present due to
supplementary feeding, not from raised tables, but instead, from the ground, there are also less
pest birds (Fig 3).
Figure 1 Mean number of pest passerine birds (± SEM) in Martinborough vineyards
(2011) with Australasian harrier feeding tables absent and present.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Table Absent Table Present
Me
an #
of
bir
ds
120
Figure 2: Percentage grape damage to edge vines in Martinborough vineyards (2011)
with feeding tables present and absent.
Figure 3: Median number of predators and passerine bird abundance in Martinborough
vineyards (2011) with and without supplementary food.
Any recommendation that I might give to you after this research, is that feeding harriers
rabbits/hare (preferably with some flesh exposed or better still skinned) and chicks is an
important attractant for harriers into your vineyard. If you want to take this further, Lepparton
hatchery, Taranaki which I have the details for, will courier a bag of 300 dead-day old cock
chicks for about $20, including freight! These can be frozen and used as required. I found
harriers favour these in the spring. Males feed the female while she sits on the nest in the
springtime. Rabbits and hares are fine to put out all year round. Additionally, winter would be
a good time to start putting food out, as the harriers are particularly hungry in this season and
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
% G
rap
e D
amag
e
Vineyard
Table not present
Table present
Unfed Fed
Predators 1 44
Birds 35 13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Me
dia
n #
pre
dat
ors
an
d b
ird
s
121
this may engender some loyalty to the vineyard in preparation for the later and important
seasons, such as summer/autumn.
I do not think the raised table is particularly necessary; a regular supply of food, maybe even
every few days placed near your edge vine areas is probably all that is necessary. However,
you will also probably attract cats and magpies (studies have shown that magpies will attack
smaller birds). While you may attract predators as well as harriers, my results have shown that
by providing supplementary foods the most common species taking it was indeed harriers.
If you have any questions about any of this research, you are most welcome to contact me. On
behalf of my supervisors, Dr. James Ross, Dr. Valerie Saxton, Dr. Adrian Paterson, Lincoln
University and I, thank you again for your support.
Yours faithfully,
Marlene Leggett
Master of Applied Science candidate, Lincoln University.